Macleans.ca » FOR THE RECORDhttp://www.macleans.ca
Canada's national weekly current affairs magazineTue, 31 Mar 2015 18:13:35 +0000en-CAhourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.2What the party leaders said about expanding the war against ISIShttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-the-party-leaders-said-about-expanding-the-war-against-islamic-state/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/what-the-party-leaders-said-about-expanding-the-war-against-islamic-state/#commentsTue, 24 Mar 2015 18:32:34 +0000macleans.cahttp://www.macleans.ca/?p=696965The transcript of what Stephen Harper, Tom Mulcair and Justin Trudeau told the House of Commons on Tuesday

On Tuesday, March 24, Prime Minister Stephen Harper laid out his argument in favour of expanding the mission against the Islamic State. Opposition leader Tom Mulcair and Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau followed with responses of their own; Elizabeth May’s efforts to speak were shot down by the House. For the record, here is the text of all four party leaders’ speeches. Portions in French are in italics.

Back in October, I also spoke of the need to work with the international community in pursuing an aggressive course of action against ISIL – something which this House endorsed.

Today I am here to report on the evolution of the situation, to note that the direction and resolve of our allies and partners in dealing with this threat has not changed, and to propose that Canada renew its commitment to the international coalition and its mission.

The good news is this: the territorial spread of ISIL, something occurring at a truly terrifying pace in the spring and summer of last year, has been more or less halted.

Indeed, ISIL has been pushed back somewhat at the margins.

In significant part, this is because of the breadth and intensity of the international opposition that it has provoked, not just in the West, but in the majority of the Muslim world, both Shia and Sunni, and specifically in Arab nations.

In fact, among the nations of the world, we have been one of the biggest providers of humanitarian assistance.

I am glad to tell you that in the last six months, we have helped feed 1.7 million people in Iraq, provide shelter and relief supplies to one and a quarter million people and give some education to at least half a million children.

Beyond that, we have also been helping to support more than 200,000 Syrian refugees in Iraq, with food, water, shelter and protection.

There is no either/or here between military action and humanitarian aid.

The situation desperately needs both and Canada has been vigorously providing both.

And so have a wide range of international partners.

And, Mr. Speaker, the upshot is this: there has been no lessening of the global consensus that ISIL must be resisted, and resisted by force.

Again, Mr. Speaker, today, we are tabling a motion seeking the support of the House for the Government’s decision to renew our military mission against ISIL for up to an additional 12 months.

Our objectives remain the same: we intend to continue to degrade the capabilities of ISIL, that is, to degrade its ability to engage in military movements of scale, to operate bases in the open, to expand its presence in the region, and to propagate attacks outside the region.

Specifically, we will extend our air combat mission, that is, our air strike capability, our air-to-air refuelling capability, our Aurora surveillance mission, and the deployment of aircrew and support personnel.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I also note that, in asking the House for the renewal of this mission over the next 12 months, it is the Government’s intention for the same period, that members of Canada’s Special Forces will continue their non-combat mission to advise, assist and increase the capabilities of Iraqi forces combating ISIL.

We share the view of President Obama and others that we must avoid if we can taking on ground combat responsibilities in this region.

We seek to have the Iraqis do this themselves, and our role there is to help them to do that.

Yet the Canadian Armed Forces never waver in defending our country, our families and our values.

We are humbled, and eternally grateful for their service and sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, this House will debate the motion put forward for a renewed mission against ISIL.

Je demande à tous les députés d’appuyer cette motion.

THOMAS MULCAIR, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION, NDP

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): Mr. Speaker, asking our brave Canadian women and men in uniform to risk their lives overseas is the most sacred duty that a Prime Minister has. Seeking approval from this House makes us all responsible for their lives. Seeking a mandate like this must be undertaken, therefore, with the utmost responsibility.

I listened very carefully as the Prime Minister spoke just now, and nothing I heard today has convinced me that the Conservatives are taking this duty with the seriousness that it deserves.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that we have had this debate before. On September 30, just six months ago, I stood in this House and asked the Prime Minister specifically whether Canadian troops would be involved in directing air strikes in Iraq and painting targets. I asked him twice, as a matter of fact, and twice the Prime Minister specifically denied it. We now know that simply was not true. I also asked the Prime Minister if Canadian troops would be accompanying Iraqi forces to the front line. Again, the Prime Minister categorically denied that, and again we now know that simply was not true. They say that truth is the first casualty of war. It has become clear that the current government has taken that saying to heart.

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): The Prime Minister has not earned that trust because he misled Canadians from the start. It is simply unconscionable that the current Conservative government would ask for the authority to extend the mission in Iraq when so many things it has told Canadians about the mission up until now have been false.

It begs the question: Do they not know the answers; or do they not want Canadians to know the answers? The women and men who put their lives on the line deserve better, Canadians deserve better.

If we all agree that it is the Prime Minister’s sacred duty to send our troops into war, then it is the official opposition’s sacred duty to scrutinize that decision to ensure that it is the right one.

Military planners will tell us that for a mission to succeed it must have two things. It must have a well-defined objective and a well-defined exit strategy. This mission has neither. The Conservatives simply have no plan. They have no strategy, other than the obvious political one, and that is putting our troops in danger.

Our brave men and women are involved in fire fights with ISIS on the ground, contrary to their clear undertaking. For the Prime Minister to still deny that Canadian troops are involved in combat is simply ludicrous. The death of Sergeant Doiron reminded us all that the risk of deployment on the front line is real. This House cannot turn a blind eye to this fact, despite the Prime Minister’s assertions.

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): The Prime Minister has not earned that trust because he misled Canadians from the start. It is simply unconscionable that the current Conservative government would ask for the authority to extend the mission in Iraq when so many things it has told Canadians about the mission up until now have been false.

It begs the question: Do they not know the answers; or do they not want Canadians to know the answers? The women and men who put their lives on the line deserve better, Canadians deserve better.

If we all agree that it is the Prime Minister’s sacred duty to send our troops into war, then it is the official opposition’s sacred duty to scrutinize that decision to ensure that it is the right one.

Military planners will tell us that for a mission to succeed it must have two things. It must have a well-defined objective and a well-defined exit strategy. This mission has neither. The Conservatives simply have no plan. They have no strategy, other than the obvious political one, and that is putting our troops in danger.

Our brave men and women are involved in fire fights with ISIS on the ground, contrary to their clear undertaking. For the Prime Minister to still deny that Canadian troops are involved in combat is simply ludicrous. The death of Sergeant Doiron reminded us all that the risk of deployment on the front line is real. This House cannot turn a blind eye to this fact, despite the Prime Minister’s assertions.

… The truth is our allies, the Americans for instance, do not even get close to the front line. In their role of targeting air strikes, the Canadian soldiers are performing a task that so far even the U.S. military has been unwilling to perform.

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, has repeatedly said the U.S. would consider directing attacks from the ground but that it has not done so yet. Why not and why are Canadian troops doing it?

It is the height of irresponsibility for a government to decide to enter a war without a clear plan, without a clear beginning and a well-defined end. That is exactly what the Conservatives are doing in Iraq. The government is taking Canada from mission creep to mission leap.

New Democrats are proud to have stood up to the Prime Minister’s misguided war from the very beginning. The fact is Canada has no place in this war. This is not—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): This is not a UN mission. It is not even a NATO mission. Despite attempts to give appearances to the contrary, it is not a NATO mission. UN missions and NATO missions are the kinds of internationally sanctioned campaigns that New Democrats can and have been able to get behind.

In 2011—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Speaker: Order. I did not hear any noise when the Right Hon. Prime Minister was speaking. I will ask members to extend the same courtesy to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. Thomas Mulcair (Leader of the Opposition, NDP): In 2011, when Moammar Gadhafi started dropping bombs on his own civilian population, New Democrats supported the international efforts to protect Libyans. That effort was sanctioned by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Of course, when the mission of protection of the civilian population became one of a so-called regime change, it was New Democrats who asked the right question—to replace it with what? Ask the Americans how that worked out in Benghazi?

Now, years later, with everything we have seen unfold in Lybia, it is clear that the NDP was right to ask those questions then. Unlike that original mission in Lybia, the war in Iraq does not have the support of the United Nations. Let us be clear about that.

Here it is important to note that the Security Council has indeed passed three resolutions dealing with Iraq, none authorizing a military mission. However, the Security Council is requiring action on preventing the flow of foreign fighters and financing of terrorist organizations, including ISIS and ISIL. Pressuring regional governments to prevent financial transfers to them is a real diplomatic effort that Canada can and should prioritize. That would be effective. The truth is that air strikes are being used as an effective recruitment tool for ISIS.

It is especially disturbing to see the Prime Minister now openly considering an alliance of sorts with the brutal dictator and war criminal, Bashar al-Assad. The Prime Minister has already said that any Canadian military involvement in Syria, something the government is now proposing as members just heard, would require the permission of the Assad regime.

This is a regime that continues to commit the most atrocious war crimes. It is a regime that not only uses chemical weapons on civilians, it uses snipers against women and children. It is a regime that actually collaborated with ISIS.

It is hard to believe the Prime Minister when he says that the mission is about preventing atrocities when he is willing to work with one of the worst perpetrators of atrocities in the world today.

Paul Heinbecker, Canada’s last ambassador to the UN Security Council, said it best. He said:

If out of fear of ISIS and of desire to stop the islamist extremist group the coalition were to ally itself de facto or de jure with Assad for fleeting tactical advantage, it would be the ultimate betrayal of the Syrian innocents and of our own values. Simply put, our women and men in uniform have no place being in Iraq and they certainly have no place being in Syria.

Mark my words, when New Democrats form government on October 19, we are going to pull our troops out. We are going to bring them home.

Canada can play a more positive role in resolving this crisis. We can do that by helping our NATO ally. Turkey coped with 1.5 million refugees who have poured over its border. We can do that by using every diplomatic, humanitarian and financial resource at our disposal to strengthen the political institutions in Iraq, and yes, in Syria.

It is simply not enough to say that we have to do something. We need to ask ourselves what the right thing to do is. The question should not be a combat role or nothing. It is a false choice offered by the Prime Minister. The question should be: What is the most effective thing Canada can do?

There is a desperate need for humanitarian support. There were reports from the parliamentary commission of this Parliament this week of children freezing to death in refugee camps. Canada could have helped with winterizing those camps.

There is also a desperate need for greater diplomacy. Local frustrations and ineffective outreach brought about the rise of ISIS. Only effective, inclusive and representative governance can end the threat from extremism in the region.

There is a need for a strong campaign to counter extremist messaging, exposing the brutality of ISIS and the lack of religious basis for its atrocities. It starts right here at home with proactive engagement with the communities to prevent radicalization. However, that is something that cannot be achieved when the Prime Minister singles out Canada’s Muslim population instead of reaching out to them.

Last fall, the Prime Minister stood in this House and told Par-liament that Canadian troops were “not accompanying the Iraqi forces into combat.”

In the weeks and months that followed, a very different story emerged.

We now know that our 30-day non-combat “advise and assist” effort became a six-month long engagement, and then evolved into one where Canadian troops were active on the front lines, regularly engaging in direct combat.

That tragic loss of life should also serve as an important re-minder. At the end of every decision to enter combat stands a brave Canadian in harm’s way, because they have the courage to serve. And because we made the decision to send them to war.

The men and women who serve in our military are well-trained professionals, deeply committed to their country, and very good at what they do. We in the Liberal Party have never been opposed to employing the lethal force of which they are capable when it clearly serves Canada’s national interest to do so. We never will be.

But in every case that national interest must be clearly and rationally articulated. The mission designed to uphold that interest must have transparent objectives and a responsible plan to achieve them.

Mr Speaker, this government has been steadily drawing Canada deeper into a combat role in Iraq. It now wants to expand that war into Syria.

Further they have done all this without clearly articulating the mission’s objectives. As a result, neither Members of this House nor Canadians have any way to know when or whether we’ve achieved those objectives.

They have no exit strategy, beyond an illusory end date set for next March.

Involvement in direct combat in this war does not serve Cana-da’s interests. Nor will it provide a constructive solution to the catastrophic humanitarian crisis in the region.

Now the Prime Minister seeks to deepen our involvement. To expand it into the Syrian Civil War.

Mr Speaker, last fall we said that because the Prime Minister failed to offer a clear and responsible plan, one that limited our participation to a true non-combat role and better reflected the broad scope of Canada’s capabilities, that we would not sup-port his motion to go to war in Iraq.

The four core principles we articulated in October still stand to-day.

One, Canada has a role to play in confronting humanitarian cri-ses in the world.

Two, when a government considers deploying our men and women in uniform, there must be a clear mission and a clear role for Canada.

Three, that the case for deploying our forces must be made openly and transparently, based on clear and reliable, dispas-sionately presented facts.
Four, Canada’s role must reflect the broad scope of Canadian capabilities and how best we can help.

In the fall, we expressed grave concern that the Prime Minister intended to involve Canada in a longer, deeper combat en-gagement than he was leading this House to believe at that time.

Today, with their motion, we know those concerns were well-founded.

We will not support the government’s decision to deepen this combat mission and expand it into Syria.

Canadians need to know that this is happening in Syria. And they also need to know who is largely responsible.

The Syrian people have for years been oppressed and terror-ized by their own government, under the rule of Bashar al-Assad. This is a man who has used chemical weapons on his own citizens, and whose regime is responsible for torturing and killing many more innocent people than even ISIL.

We cannot support a mission that could very well result in Assad consolidating his grip on power in Syria.

We can call it “evolution” or “escalation” or “mission creep.” Whatever term you prefer, the pattern is the same.

First, we discovered that our role included ground combat op-erations, despite the Prime Minister’s assurances to the contra-ry.

Now we’re being asked to expand our involvement into Syria.

It is hard to believe the proposed timeline, given the public musings of the Ministers of Defence and Foreign Affairs. In-deed, the Minister of Foreign Affairs explicitly compared this war to Afghanistan, stating that “[we are] in this for the longer term.”

They are proposing an unfocused, unending mission for the Canadian Forces that we cannot support.

Mr Speaker, one thing is clear: Canada has a role to play in the campaign against ISIL. That role must serve our national interests, and the one being proposed today by the Prime Minister does not meet that test.

Along with our allies, and through the auspices of the United Nations, Canada should provide more help through a well-funded and well-planned humanitarian aid effort. The refugee crisis alone threatens the region’s security, overwhelming coun-tries from Lebanon to Turkey, from Syria itself to Jordan.

And here at home, we should significantly expand our refugee targets and give more victims of war the opportunity to start a new life in Canada.

These calamities are in urgent need of a constructive, coordi-nated international effort, both through the United Nations, and beyond it. The kind of effort that ought to be Canada’s call-ing card in the global community.

We will have more to say about that in the days and months ahead.

While all three parties have different views on what our role should be, let there be no doubt that we all offer our resolute and wholehearted support to the brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Today, Mr. Speaker, the government is asking for this House to support deepening Canada’s involvement in the war in Iraq, and to expand that involvement into a combat mission in Syria. The Liberal Party will not support this government’s motion.

Thank you.

ELIZABETH MAY, GREEN PARTY LEADER

These remarks were sent in an email to the press gallery.

We’ve learned the dangers of shortsighted thinking from the ill-conceived military action in Libya, which made the terrorist threat across North Africa even worse. Once again, the Harper Conservatives have no clear direction, end-goal or exit strategy for the Iraq mission, which grew from a non-combat role to a combat mission on the ground, and now would include airstrikes in both Iraq and Syria.

The Green Party has been clear from the beginning: We must not engage in military operations of uncertain scope and purpose that are not in Canada’s national interest and do so little to strengthen global peace and security.

Instead, we must immediately sign the UN Arms Trade Treaty to reduce the flow of conventional arms that fuel these senseless tragic conflicts, crack down on the money flowing to ISIS and other terrorist groups, and collaborate with our allies to relieve the immense humanitarian suffering.

Ultimately, as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has said, ‘Over the longer-term, the biggest threat to terrorists is not power of missiles, it is the politics of inclusion.’

The following is the prepared text of NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s remarks to a rally in Toronto yesterday. Seven months away from a federal vote, Mulcair used the speech to make a bid for voters in Canada’s biggest city and to explain his urban agenda.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Hello, Toronto!

Are you ready to bring change to Ottawa? Are you ready to replace the politics of fear with the politics hope and optimism? Are you ready to replace Stephen Harper’s Conservatives with an NDP government to build a better Toronto? We’re ready, too.

It’s great to be back again in this amazing city. I have been travelling throughout the Greater Toronto Area with Catherine a lot lately, and whether it’s in East China Town, Little Portugal, Parkdale, Riverdale, the Beaches, Brampton or Mississauga, one theme has emerged loud and clear: that after nine years of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, Torontonians are ready for change in Ottawa.

And it’s not difficult to see why. Middle-class families—and those fighting to get into the middle class—are working harder but falling further behind. Incomes are dropping and household debt is rising.

The number of Canadians who are unemployed today has increased by over a quarter of a million since before the 2008 recession. Half of all households in the GTA do not have a single full-time job. Youth unemployment in Toronto is 16 per cent. The jobs that are being created are part-time and precarious. According to the CIBC, the quality of jobs today is at the lowest level in two decades.

And all the while, the gap between the middle class and the wealthiest few is at an all-time high and getting wider. No place in Canada knows this situation better than Toronto. The United Way noted just last month that Toronto is the inequality capital of Canada. For the first time in our country’s history, current generations will be worse off than their parents.

But you and I know it doesn’t have to be this way. That’s why Toronto wants change in Ottawa.And friends, that change is within reach. With just a handful more NDP seats, right here in Toronto, we can defeat Stephen Harper and get Canada on track.

Over the past months, we have announced just a few of our concrete, practical proposals that will repair the damage Stephen Harper has done and set Canada on the right path.

Under Stephen Harper, senior citizens in Toronto and across Canada can’t retire until 67. We’ll fix that and bring the retirement age back to 65.

Under Stephen Harper, there is no federal minimum wage. We’ll change that and bring in a federal minimum wage at $15 an hour.

And under Stephen Harper, more money is transferred from the middle class to the privileged few. We’ll reverse that and, as a first step, we’ll scrap his unfair income-splitting scheme. Instead of taking billions of dollars from hard-working Toronto families and giving it to the wealthiest 15 per cent, we’ll invest that money in middle-class families right here in Toronto.

My friends, Toronto is a great city. For centuries, this spot on the north shore of Lake Ontario—traditional territory of the Mississauga—has served as a place to settle, to do business, to raise families and build communities, a place where dreams are pursued. With over 80,000 new immigrants arriving each year, Toronto is where Canada welcomes the world. It is home to 1.5 million highly educated and skilled workers that make up one-sixth of Canada’s workforce. Toronto is home to 90,000 businesses, does $70 billion in exports and produces 20 per cent of Canada’s GDP. The foundations of this dynamic metropolis are made up of a people who are hard-working, generous and progressive.

And I believe that it is time to build on these foundations. When it comes to the future of Toronto and all of our big cities, I believe it’s time to think big again, to be bold again, to reach higher and build the Canada of our dreams.

It all starts here, my friends, because only when Toronto is strong is Canada strong. Canada thrives when Toronto thrives, and, as your prime minister, we will build a better Toronto and a stronger Canada. After years of being taken for granted by the Liberals and neglected by the Conservatives, it’s been the NDP’s Toronto team of MPs who have stood up and fought for this city. Your Toronto NDP members of Parliament—Rathika, Dan, Matthew, Craig, Andrew, Mike and Peggy—have fought tirelessly for Toronto. Matt’s fighting for an urban agenda. Andrew’s standing up for precarious and self-employed urban workers. Rathika’s fighting to eliminate child poverty in Toronto and across Canada. Mike’s fighting for Toronto housing and the disabled. Dan’s been working to make post-secondary education more accessible. Peggy has been fighting for rail safety in this city and clean trains, and Craig has been fighting to make every vote count in Toronto and across Canada through proportional representation.

That’s what happens when you elect Toronto NDP MPs: They stand up and fight for this city and the people who make it great.

Today, I want to share with you some of my vision and first steps for how a New Democratic government in Ottawa will work to help build a better Toronto. I believe that every city in Canada should have a modern transit infrastructure needed to move its people quickly and affordably. In the Toronto municipal election this past fall, one of the big issues was transit—and for good reason. Buses are overcrowded, streetcars are in constant disrepair and subway routes haven’t kept pace with population growth. The effects have been long delays, more congestion and gridlock. In fact, the average commute time in Toronto—over 80 minutes per day—is longer than in London, New York or Los Angeles. Gridlock costs the City of Toronto at least $6 billion in lost productivity, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

Under Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, local governments are forced to choose between transit and infrastructure. That’s a false choice. Cities like Toronto shouldn’t have to choose between better roads or better transit; Toronto needs both. And they shouldn’t have to plead for ad hoc, one-off funding commitments from Ottawa that can disappear tomorrow. Under an NDP government, we’ll create a special funding envelope just for transit and our commitment will be permanent, stable and predictable.

To build a better Toronto, local decision-makers must be able to plan long-term. Jack Layton fought and won to bring about stable funding for transit when he pushed for the federal gas tax transfer and increased transit investments. Last year, I announced that, as a first step, an NDP government would add to that permanent investment an additional $420 million for transit across Canada from the existing gas tax—$90 million annually for the GTA alone. And when we look at additional measures, I say this to municipal leaders: Come to me with concrete, locally developed plans that drastically reduce commute times—and we will be your partner. And let me say directly to Mayor [John] Tory and the entire city council with a New Democratic government in Ottawa: You will have a long-term, stable partner for transit and together we will get the people of Toronto moving.

I believe that every young family with children should get the support they need, and that means quality affordable child care. Today, there are approximately 20,000 families in the city of Toronto on waiting lists for affordable child care and tens of thousands more who need access to affordable quality child care. The city of Toronto has the highest toddler fees in Canada, and Brampton is the least affordable city for child care in the entire country. In Brampton, fees are worth 36 per cent of a woman’s average income, the equivalent of four months of work. And remember: It’s almost always women who make sacrifices in their careers, when there’s no child care. A New Democratic government will build a better Toronto by introducing $15-a-day child care and, once fully implemented, will fund one million spaces across Canada—164,000 spaces in the GTA alone.

We also believe affordable housing in Canada is a right. Today, nearly 100,000 families are on the wait list for social housing in this city alone. The city and the province cannot do it on their own; they need a reliable partner in Ottawa. In 1972, David Lewis secured the modern federal social housing strategy and, in 2005, Jack Layton’s Better Balanced Budget invested over a billion dollars into affordable housing. These were important steps, but, to address the seriousness of the housing crisis, we have to take it to the next level. A New Democratic government will build a better Toronto by becoming a long-term, stable partner to build affordable housing. I’ll appoint a minister responsible for urban affairs with a mandate within the first 100 days of taking office to identify worthy extensions of the social housing investments that are soon set to expire, and identify new investments to ensure we tackle the crisis of affordable housing and homelessness in Toronto and across Canada.

We believe that every new Canadian who comes to this great country should be able to pursue the Canadian dream, with all of their talent and skill. Millions do this every day; it is one of the things that makes Toronto great. But still, many more new Canadians who want to live to their fullest potential can’t—because the Harper Conservatives are moving far too slowly in reuniting families and helping new citizens integrate into the work force. A New Democratic government will build a better Toronto by accelerating immigration process times so families can be reunited faster. And we will work with provinces, territories and stakeholders to streamline the recognition of foreign credentials, to ensure every New Canadian can fully participate in the economy.

We believe that small businesses are the backbone of our local communities. In Toronto and throughout Canada, small businesses create 80 per cent of all new jobs. Throughout the GTA, there are thousands of small businesses looking to grow. They hire locally. They invest locally, and it’s time to give hard-working small businesses a break and help them create more jobs. A New Democratic government will build a better Toronto by cutting the tax rate for Toronto small businesses—from 11 to nine per cent. This will allow Toronto’s small businesses to expand, to move staff from part-time to full-time—and to hire additional employees. While the Conservatives and Liberals want to give billions in tax cuts to the largest corporations, the NDP will reward the job creators—Toronto’s small businesses.

Better transit, accessible child care, affordable housing, enabling new Canadians and help for small business—these just a few of the steps we will take to build a better Toronto and a stronger Canada.

My friends, in my 35 years of public life, I’ve learned a thing or two. In my time around the cabinet table, I’ve been front and centre for the difficult decisions that are made in government, day in and day out. Whether it’s meeting with premiers to work on the future of our federation or with world leaders to discuss global economic opportunities or terrorist threats, being prime minister is not an entry-level job. Over the coming weeks and months, we’ll invite Canadians to ask themselves: Which leader has the experience to defeat Stephen Harper and the plan to repair the damage he’s done?

My family story is that of millions of Canadian families. Growing up the second-oldest of 10 kids, we had to work for everything we had. It wasn’t easy. We worked hard, played by the rules and lived within our means. We learned the importance of looking out for one another, sticking together, of backing up your principles with action. These are the values that guide me as a husband, as a father, and as a grandfather. These are the values that have guided me in my 35 years of public service, as a cabinet minister in the government of Quebec, and these are the values that will guide me as your prime minister.

Our offer to Toronto and to all of Canada is clear: a government that stands up for middle-class families and the cities in which they live, a government that grows the economy and creates stable, full-time jobs, while protecting the environment [and] where our youth get the opportunities they need and our seniors get the benefits they deserve. We will build a Canada, where democratic traditions are respected at home and our reputation as a country is respected abroad, where we replace fear and division with hope and optimism. A Canada where everyone belongs and no one is left behind. This is our offer, and this is the choice Canadians have in 2015.

****

My friends, we have a lot of hard work to do. We’ve got to roll up our sleeves and take our message to every corner of the GTA—from Oshawa to Oakville, from Scarborough to Streetsville, from Newmarket to the Toronto Islands.

Tell your neighbours that better transit is possible. Tell them quality, affordable child care is just an election away, that affordable housing, help for New Canadians and small business is within reach. And tell them that, beginning with just a handful more seats here in Toronto, the NDP can defeat Stephen Harper and build a better Toronto and a stronger Canada. Are you up for it? Then let’s get out there and build a better Toronto, a better GTA for all.

The following is the prepared text of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau’s speech to an audience in Toronto this evening—a speech that has made news for its criticism of the Harper government.

Thank you, Ken, for that kind introduction. And thanks for all the work you do for the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada. MISC depends more than anything on generosity of spirit, and you have been beyond kind with your time and talent over the years. Countless McGill students have had their lives and career choices touched by your wisdom, and we’re all better for it.

I also want to thank the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada for hosting this great event.

Wasn’t that a fantastic debate?

You know, I dabbled in the debating union at McGill. I even debated Ted Cruz once at a tournament at Yale.

He hasn’t changed very much.

Anyway, I came to the conclusion that I couldn’t convincingly argue for things I didn’t believe in. I congratulate tonight’s debaters for overcoming that obstacle.

As you all know, I had a unique window on Canada and the world through my childhood. But, like all McGill graduates, I had my ideas shaped, tempered and tested by my time on campus. I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to McGill, to my professors and to my fellow students.

Most of you will know what I mean when I say this. One of the first things you learn at McGill is that every room is teeming with people who are used to being—or, at least, feeling like—the smartest person in the room.

Then, as now, since you are all in the same room, basic math requires you to put that feeling behind you.

And if you’re really smart, you learn to do it quickly. You take advantage of the unique opportunity that comes from being immersed in such a dynamic environment. I remember hours spent at Gerts over pints, arguing with friends from the women’s union about whether a man could be a feminist.

I remember challenging fellow students in seminars about a culture of political correctness that didn’t change mindsets, but just drove them beneath the surface.

McGill, like Canada, is an amazing place. And MISC serves both extraordinarily well.

The Institute was created by McGill and the Bronfman family to help us all understand this great country better. To see our history and heritage with clear eyes, to grapple with the challenges we face today, and to gain the broadest and deepest sense of the many possibilities open to us in the future.

It’s a big, important mission. And I want to address one particularly vital aspect of it. I hope tonight to make a modest contribution to the Institute’s ongoing effort—and I’m quoting from the mission statement here—“to identify and explore the benefits that a pluralistic society offers.”

It’s an important mission for Canada, but it’s a uniquely fitting topic to talk about, here in Toronto. This city is the epicentre of Canadian multiculturalism, a place where people from every imaginable country and culture, who speak every language, live and work and build and thrive together. For much of the world, Toronto represents the most hopeful vision of what their future could look like. Here, we are blessed to call it our present.

To me, pluralism means diversity, and diversity is at the very heart of Canada. It is who we are and what we do.

We do it better than anyone else on Earth. So well, in fact, that we often take it for granted.

So let’s remind ourselves: Canada is the only country in the world that is strong, not in spite of our differences, but because of them.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but I believe the root cause of our success is a uniquely Canadian idea of freedom, of liberty.

That’s the idea I want to develop with you tonight.

First, I want to argue that Canadian liberty is all about inclusion. We have had deeply regrettable moments. But the history of this country is one in which we are constantly challenging ourselves and each other to extend our personal definitions of who is a Canadian.

This is a good and important thing. It is good for us, good for our country, and important to the world.

Second, I’ll make the case that Canadian liberty has got one of the world’s most vexatious problems right: the interplay between individual freedom and collective identity. We understand that people are defined both by the things that unite and distinguish us from one another: languages, cultures, faiths—even, importantly, our gender and sexual orientation. However, we also know that all of these contribute to a person’s identity, but don’t define it. These things all find their highest, most concrete expression in the individual human beings who embody them.

This, too, is a good thing. It gives people room to live and breathe. It gives our many cultures fuel to grow and change. It gives Canada over to Canadians, to build as we see fit.

Third, I want to make the important point that none of this happened by accident, and it won’t continue without effort. We have built vital institutions around it, but Canadian liberty requires Canadian political leadership to be sustained. Canada is the way it is because Canadians built it to be that way. Generations of us elected leaders from all parties who shared those values and shaped this country. While I am deeply optimistic about this country’s future, I recognize that that future is by no means certain. It depends on the choices we make today.

So it won’t surprise anyone to hear me disagree with the kind of leadership we’re getting from the current Prime Minister and his government.

But before I get into the meat of the argument, let me set the table. Plenty of people will wonder why a political leader would bother giving a speech on a notion such as liberty. After all, our politics are supposed to be retail these days. We’re expected to talk about very specific measures targeted at “key audiences” and “swing voters,” especially in an election year.

But I have an old-fashioned view. I think policies are concrete expressions of values. Priorities are important. Specific commitments are important. But there is no way to predict the events you will need to navigate during your time in office, let alone the measures that will be required to manage those events. People aren’t naive. They know that.

So Canadians ought to know what core values will motivate their leaders’ decisions, whatever events may throw at them.

For me, one of the most important core values is liberty. Specifically, I believe that one of the highest aims of Canadian political leadership is to protect and expand freedom for Canadians.

I say this not just because the Canadian idea of liberty is important to me, which it is. It has motivated several of the significant policy changes I have brought forward as leader of my party. But it’s important to all of us. Our shared commitment to it is the very foundation of the amazing country we have built together.

I also think it’s time Liberals took back liberty. These Conservatives pretend to talk a good game about freedom, but look at what they’ve done with it.

They have fallen a long way from the era of Sir John A. Macdonald to the “why do you hate freedom?” taunts of the recently departed Sun News Network.

Their instincts are now to be suspicious of people who do not share their beliefs, to harden divisions with people whose views differ from their own.

In my seven years in Parliament, I have heard the conservative Prime Minister accuse two leaders of the NDP of sympathizing with terrorists, the Conservative party accuse notable McGillian Irwin Cotler of anti-Semitism, and the former public safety minister declare: “You’re either with us, or you’re with the child pornographers.”

For that particular effort, the Prime Minister eventually rewarded him with a judicial appointment.

This, my friends, is not your parents’ Conservative party.

Their approach to politics might work in the short term, but it is corrosive over time, especially in a diverse country like Canada. It stokes anxiety and foments fear. Instead of encouraging Canadians to fight for one another’s liberty, it tells us to be suspicious of each other’s choices.

Mr. Harper and I disagree fundamentally about many things. None perhaps more so than this: Leading this country should mean you bring Canadians together. You do not divide them against one another.

Fear is a dangerous thing. Once it is sanctioned by the state, there is no telling where it might lead. It is always a short path to walk from being suspicious of our fellow citizens to taking actions to restrict their liberty.

And that, to borrow a phrase, is not the way we ought to do things around here. Not in Canada.

So, first, in Canada, when we are at our best, liberty means inclusion.

We haven’t always been at our best. We have had many failures, the most pernicious and invidious of which is still very much with us: the second-class citizenship of indigenous peoples.

There are other dark episodes: the Chinese head tax, the internment of Ukrainian, Japanese, and Italian Canadians during the First and Second World Wars, our turning away boats of Jewish or Punjabi refugees, our own history of slavery. No Irish need apply. We don’t speak French here, so “speak white.” The discrimination faced by Greek and Portuguese Canadians in this very city.

For each and every one of these, we look back with regret and shame. And we should.

But we should also learn from them. Mackenzie King ordered those internments because they were popular. In fact, he did it despite evidence from the RCMP and Defence that they were unwarranted. He did it because people were afraid.

When I talk to young people today about these episodes, they can hardly believe they happened. It doesn’t sound possible, not in Canada.

So we should all shudder to hear the same rhetoric that led to a “none is too many” immigration policy toward Jews in the ’30s and ’40s, being used to raise fears against Muslims today.

That’s because the Canada we all cherish stands for the opposite of those dark moments. And for each of those, there are thousands of hopeful, open, moments, where the Canadian journey moves inexorably toward greater inclusion and greater liberty. The Underground Railroad. The Official Languages Act. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Multiculturalism Act. The admittance of Ismaili Muslim refugees. The freedom for Jews and Sikhs, Hindus and Evangelicals to practise their religion.

We all know the famous quote so beloved by Martin Luther King, Jr: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Well, for all our instructive moments of failure, the arc of Canadian history bends toward inclusion, toward liberty.

We don’t get it right every day. We don’t make progress every year. Sometimes we even take a step back. But as we approach Canada’s 150th birthday, we can look back over our history and see which way our country bends.

The point is that each successive generation of Canadians has fought to expand liberty to their fellow citizens who had been denied it. The naysayers claimed at every step that liberty’s expansion would compromise our traditional values. They said it would somehow dilute what it means to be Canadian.

We can see now that they were categorically wrong. That’s because working to gain freedom for our fellow citizens is a bedrock traditional value in this country. It is in large measure what it means to be Canadian.

There is no greater illustration of this point than the history of women’s experience in Canada.

When I was one, my grandmother Grace held me in her arms before she passed away. She was of a generation of Canadian women that had to fight to gain the franchise. Her eldest son—my father—was born in the first year women were eligible to vote in federal elections.

My mother, who, in many ways, represented a new movement of freedom to her contemporaries, still endured public criticism that would be unacceptable today.

And when I think of the possibilities open to my daughter’s generation, it’s hard not to be proud of all we have achieved. Again, though, much remains to be done. Women still face unacceptable sexual violence in Canada, and discrimination, especially when it comes to equal pay for equal work.

But when you take the long view, it is impossible to be anything but awestruck by the progress we have made in creating a society where women are not just included, but vital to our economic and social progress.

The instructive point here is obvious, but often overlooked. One set of policies in postwar Canada generated more liberty for more people than any other. It was the decades-long effort of the women’s movement to gain control over reproductive health and rights.

Indeed, let me be perfectly clear on this point. The Canada we know today is unimaginable without widely available birth control and the legalization of choice.

Every conceivable measure of inclusion and progress has moved in the right direction since women gained legally protected reproductive freedom in Canada, from workforce participation to educational attainment to representation in the corridors of economic and political power.

That’s why I took such a strong stand in favour of a woman’s right to choose when I sought the leadership of my party. It’s why I implemented a strong new policy soon after being elected, a few years back.

You see, I have this notion that the Liberal party ought to be a liberal party. It ought to stand for the policy that created an unprecedented expansion of liberty for half the population of the country.

The criticism that followed my decision from many quarters shows you how badly we need to restate and defend a clear idea of Canadian liberty. Indeed, most of my critics argued that this new policy represented a restriction of freedom—the freedom of Liberal MPs to vote their conscience.

This is an important point, because, when different notions of liberty come into conflict, it helps clarify our thinking.

Their argument went like this: Forcing a Liberal MP to vote against [his or her] conscience on a matter of morality is an unjust restriction of [his or her] liberty. It sounds like a reasonable argument. However, it is easily dismissed, when you realize it is based on a value judgment about whose freedom is more important: that of an MP elected as a Liberal, or that of Canadian women.

Let’s be clear on this. For Liberals, the right of a woman to control her body is more important than the right of a legislator to restrict her freedom with [his or her] vote. MPs who disagree with that have other choices. They can sit as Independents, or as Conservatives.

But for me, Canadian liberty is not about the freedom of powerful people to exercise that freedom according to the dictates of their conscience. It is about Canadians’ rights not to have their freedom unduly restricted, especially by the state.

Indeed, this gets to the heart of the Canadian idea of liberty. In Canada, freedom is not just an aspirational value. It is a lived reality. It is woven into the fabric of our most important institutions, from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to our uniquely successful approach to immigration, to our cities’ excellent public schools.

In Canada, liberty is a public good. It is not just something that we hope you can achieve on your own, if given the opportunity. It is something we work to provide for one another, and that we have grown to rightly expect from one another.

As my second-favourite prime minister, Wilfrid Laurier, once said: “Canada is free, and freedom is its nationality.”

That is why efforts of one group to restrict the liberty of another are so very dangerous to this country, especially when the agencies of the state are used to do it.

We get a very important thing right in Canada. Not perfect, but right. That thing is the balance between individual freedom and collective identity, which is the second argument about Canadian liberty I want make tonight.

In Canada, we know that people are defined, in large measure, by our relationships to other people: 0ur cultural background, our religious beliefs, our gender, our sexual orientation.

However, we also believe that all of those collective associations receive their highest expression in the form of real, flesh and blood, individual human beings. That is the genius of Canada. We expand cultural freedom by ensuring that individual Canadians who come from diverse communities have the freedom to live and express and grow and change their cultures.

We refuse to see a contradiction between individual liberty and collective identity. In fact, we have created a society where both thrive and mutually reinforce one another.

It was, at its root, a leap of faith, and a very new idea. Over time, we learned to trust that, whatever their culture of origin, the more people engage with the breadth of our country’s diversity, the more Canadian they will become.

In turn, we would change our own cultures. Where there was repression, it would be defeated by the more compelling Canadian opportunity to achieve liberty. Where there was isolation, we would meet it with openness and inclusion.

It may have started as a leap of faith, but it has become a defining characteristic of our country, our great success, and our gift to the world.

We have proven that a country—an astonishingly successful country—can be built on, and defined by, shared values. Not by religion, language, or ethnicity, but shared values.

In characteristically Canadian fashion, we don’t celebrate this success often enough, but the world needs us to, especially now. One of the most difficult and urgent global problems is how to develop societies where people of different cultures can live together and build common ground.

I have deep B.C. roots, but I am a francophone Quebecer, and proud of it. Very proud. But I am most proud that my country not only grants me the freedom to be who I am, but values and honours my culture in a way that has created the conditions it needs to thrive.

This model of Canadian liberty, of inclusive diversity, might indeed have been born of the need for two great cultures who had been historically at odds to make a new country together. However, informed by the peoples who had lived on this land for millennia, we have turned it into a model for how to make an unimaginably more diverse society harmonious.

And the world has noticed.

Mr. Harper has been busy trying to portray Canada as a fossil-fuel superpower. He chooses to ignore that the world has already recognized us as a constitutional superpower. Places as diverse as Israel, South Africa and Australia have consciously emulated our Charter of Rights and Freedoms in an effort to tackle some of the problems that we have dealt with better than any country on Earth.

As the Globe and Mail wrote back in 2012, on the Charter’s 30th birthday: “The Charter doesn’t belong to the Liberals or to Conservatives. It belongs to all Canadians—and, increasingly, to the world.”

Now, for obvious family reasons, I’m tempted to claim that the Charter is responsible for the idea of Canadian liberty I am describing tonight. And let there be no doubt: The Charter certainly expanded freedom for all Canadians.

We are all now free to marry whom we love, women are free to control their reproductive rights and, soon, we will be free to choose to die with dignity.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms created the opportunity and the vehicle for Canadians to gain these new liberties for themselves. Heaven knows, it would have taken a lot longer to win those freedoms, had the effort been left in the hands of Parliament. More ominously, I shudder to think about what Mr. Harper’s government might have gotten away with, were the Charter not in place.

But I like to think what the Charter really does is hold us accountable to our best vision of ourselves. It requires Canadians to live up to our responsibilities to one another, and to Canada. In an ideal world, it wouldn’t be necessary, but, since we live in this one, we all should be deeply thankful we have it.

Which brings me to the third point I want to make tonight: that the Charter is the ultimate guarantee of Canadian liberty, but it’s not enough. It’s important to remember that the Charter itself was the product of political leadership. It had its opponents, still has its detractors, and we currently have a government that refuses to celebrate it.

It is also important to understand that the Charter might protect us from our government, but it doesn’t always protect us from each other. Canadian liberty might be protected by the Constitution, but it must be promoted by political leadership.

I want to tell you about someone. Her name is Rania El-Alloul, and she just endured something no Canadian ought to be put through.

Rania arrived in court in Quebec last month on a routine property matter. She is a single mom who is working hard to raise her kids. Like millions of women who face similar circumstances, she has a hard time making ends meet. She was petitioning the court for help.

Like a million other Canadians, Rania professes the Muslim faith. She presented herself to the court wearing a hijab, a headscarf very commonly worn by Muslim women, and women of other faiths, I might add. For her, it is an important part of her personal identity, and an expression of her religious liberty.

Imagine her shock when the presiding judge refused to hear her case unless she removed her headscarf. Not without reason, she said that order made her feel as if she were not Canadian.

Rania’s story is part of a troubling trend that Mr. Harper seems keen to accelerate and exploit.

Last year, after more than seven years of accepting the practice, his minister of immigration declared by fiat that women would no longer be able to wear a niqab during citizenship ceremonies. The federal court of appeal overturned the policy.

But a few weeks before Rania suffered her unjust indignity, Mr. Harper made an announcement at a campaign rally in Victoriaville, Que.

What did Mr. Harper say at this rally? Despite broad consensus that he has no reasonable chance of success, he announced that his government would appeal the decision, because he found the wearing of a niqab “offensive” and was convinced that most Canadians did, too.

Within hours of that rally, the Prime Minister’s party was using it as a fundraising pitch, declaring flatly, and I quote, that wearing a niqab is “not the way we do things here.” Within a week, I am sad to say that a distinguished graduate of McGill, Minister Chris Alexander, was declaring in the House of Commons that even Rania’s hijab represented an indefensible perversion of Canadian values.

As I said earlier, my friends, fear is a dangerous thing. Once stoked, whether by a judge from the bench or a Prime Minister with a dog whistle, there is no way to predict where it will end.

These are troubling times.

Across Canada and, especially, in my home province, Canadians are being encouraged by their government to be fearful of one another.

For me, this is both unconscionable and a real threat to Canadian liberty. For me, it is basic truth that prime ministers of liberal democracies ought not to be in the business of telling women what they can and cannot wear on their head during public ceremonies—least of all, this liberal democracy.

Cloaking an argument about what women can wear in the language of feminism has to be the most innovative perversion of liberty that conservatives have invented in a while. It is, of course, not the first time the most illiberal of ends has been packaged in the language of liberation.

You can dislike the niqab. You can hold it up it is a symbol of oppression. You can try to convince your fellow citizens that it is a choice they ought not to make.

This is a free country. Those are your rights.

But those who would use the state’s power to restrict women’s religious freedom and freedom of expression indulge the very same repressive impulse that they profess to condemn.

It is a cruel joke to claim you are liberating people from oppression by dictating in law what they can and cannot wear.

Whatever happened to a free society’s requirement that we can disagree with a person’s choices, but must defend their right to make them?

But what’s even worse than what they’re saying is what they really mean. We all know what is going on here. It is nothing less than an attempt to play on people’s fears and foster prejudice, directly toward the Muslim faith.

This is not the spirit of Canadian liberty, my friends. It is the spirit of the Komagata Maru. Of the St. Louis. Of “none is too many.”

Canada is where a million Muslims live and thrive in a free and open, secular democracy. The world needs more of that, not less of it.

Keeping these freedoms safe from those who would undermine them through violence is a vital national responsibility. It is both true and obvious that Canadian liberty cannot exist without collective security. As I learned at McGill many years ago, our social contract sometimes requires us to moderate our freedoms in order to ensure we maintain them in the long run. The ongoing question for democracies is how we strike the right balance. We will offer our answers to these questions as part of our national security policy in our election platform.

What we cannot ever do is blur the line between a real security threat and simple prejudice, as this government has done. I believe they have done it deliberately, and I believe what they have done is deeply wrong.

In defending Canada, we cannot allow ourselves to become less Canadian.

Ultimately, my friends, the antidote to repression is liberty.

It is this idea that will defeat terrorism and totalitarianism in the long run. It always has. The lethal enemies of terrorists and dictators are societies that are open, thriving and free—not just on paper, but in the streets.

Those of us lucky enough to benefit from Canadian liberty’s many blessings need to be strong and confident custodians of its character: inclusive freedom, expansive freedom. That is the Canadian idea of liberty: the idea that the liberty of all is enhanced when new freedoms are granted to individuals.

Nelson Mandela, honourary Canadian, who knew something about liberty and about being deprived of it, put it this way: “To be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others.”

Canadian liberty compels us to resist the urge to impose our personal beliefs upon our fellow citizens, but it is worth it because of what we get back in return. Because what we get back in return is Canada.

Male dentistry students at Dalhousie University who participated in a Facebook page that contained sexually violent content about female classmates have expressed remorse in an open letter to the community. The university in Halifax posted a joint statement dated Sunday by 29 members of the fourth-year dentistry class on its website, with the unidentified students who wrote what is described as an open letter saying they wanted to comment before an academic standards committee rules on what discipline will be applied. That statement follows:

We, the 29 members of the class of DDS2015 participating in the restorative justice process, offer this public update to share some information about the process and our experience so far. This statement reflects our collective experience and sentiments. It is divided in order to offer some reflections directly from the members of the Facebook group engaged in our process, from the directly impacted women within the restorative justice process, and from the entire participant group. Our process includes 12 members of the DDS2015 Facebook group, six women named in the Facebook posts made public, and 11 women and men from the directly affected class of DDS2015.

We are providing this statement at this time because we anticipate an update from the Academic Standards Class Committee (ASCC). The ASCC has been kept informed of the work within the restorative process aimed at remediating behaviour and addressing the harms related to the incident. We want to share some of this information with the broader community and the public so that they are able to understand our perspectives and experience within the process as well.

From the Members of the DDS2015 Facebook Group in the Restorative Justice Process:

From the beginning of this process in December we felt incredibly remorseful and took ownership of what we did (individually and collectively). Our conduct as members of the Facebook group was hurtful, painful, and wrong. It has impacted our classmates, friends, families, faculty, staff, patients, the university community, the profession and the public. Our actions have led to significant consequences for us, but also for others. Many of the consequences we have experienced both personally and professionally are a natural result of our actions and we own those consequences. Our actions have also had profound consequences for others that we own with deep regret. We know that our conduct has damaged trust in many important relationships. We know that we must work to earn back this trust. Since December we have been engaged in the intensive and difficult self-reflection and development required to start the process of earning back the trust of our colleagues, families, professors, the university community, the profession and the public. This will take time but we will work each day to model the personal and professional core values to which we are committed and that will guide us now and in the future. We hope one day to regain the trust of those we have harmed and impacted.

Our silence has been interpreted by some as cowardice — as if we are hiding from our responsibilities. It has been very tempting to satisfy calls for us to say we are sorry. Doing so would have made us feel better, but it would have been self-serving if not based upon the hard work necessary to gain the depth of understanding required for meaningful and sincere apology. We are committed to continue to work through the restorative process to develop this understanding. We know much more than saying `sorry’ is required. We are doing the hard work to figure out how to truly be sorry. We owe meaningful apologies to those we have impacted most directly first.

Through the process we have had the opportunity to offer some of these apologies already and they have been accepted. We continue to work to be worthy of their acceptance. Only after we have done more of this work would we be ready to offer broader apologies to the community and the public. Through the restorative justice process we are doing the work required to be sorry _ to confront the harms we have caused, to accept our responsibility, to figure out what is needed of us to make things right, and to gain the knowledge, skills and capacities to be trusted health-care professionals. This is difficult and 2 time consuming work – and it should be. We are committed to seeing this through. The process has engaged individuals from the faculty, university, the profession and the public. Involvement from these groups will continue and expand as the process moves to further examine the broader circumstances, causes and consequences of this situation. We have already learned much about ourselves, the consequences of our actions, and our contribution to the culture and climate within the faculty and the university. Our work has included: providing detailed accounts of our participation in the Facebook group and events following its discovery as part of the investigation; regular contact with the restorative facilitators since December (at a minimum weekly, in many cases daily); participation in regular and ongoing meetings with facilitators individually, in small groups and with the entire group to explore harms and impacts, accept responsibility and consider what actions are necessary to make amends. Sessions have included educational workshops and training modules supported by experts in the fields of public safety and security, sexualized and gendered violence and trauma, psychology and counselling, law and human rights, religion, and conflict resolution. In addition, we have taken specific in depth educational workshops to better understand misogyny and rape culture and bystander intervention.

We do not know what the outcomes of the process will be because this work is still underway. We know that we cannot go back and undo what has happened, but we are committed to making this experience matter – to contribute to the change that is needed. The need for change in ourselves became very clear through deep reflection on our failures and harmful actions. We also recognize that we have an opportunity and responsibility to contribute to necessary changes in the climate and culture within our faculty, the university community and in the profession we aspire to be a part of one day. We are committed to giving back and making a positive contribution to our communities. We have been given the opportunity, through this restorative justice process, to confront what we have done, the harm it has caused, and to learn what we need to do to become the trusted professionals we want to be. We are very grateful for the commitment of time, expertise and support that has made this possible. We will endeavour to be worthy of this opportunity and to contribute back to the community in equal measure.

From the Women of the Class of DDS2015 involved in the Restorative Justice Process

As women directly impacted by the Facebook posts released to the media, we decided to participate in this restorative justice process as a way to address the harmful conduct revealed by the posts and our experiences of the broader culture they reflect within our faculty, university and society. We respect that everyone who has been directly impacted by this situation deserves equal opportunity to proceed in a way in which they are comfortable. We wish to be accorded the same respect for this justice path we have chosen. We made this choice informed of all of the options available to us and came to our decision independently and without coercion. We have exercised restraint in discussing our perspective in the media but, to be clear, we do not feel that the coverage on social and mainstream media has been representative of our unique or common experiences. Many people (some with good intentions) have spoken about us and in the process often attempted to speak for us in ways that we have experienced as harmful, silencing and re-traumatizing. Our perspective and decision to proceed through this process has often not been honoured or trusted but dismissed or criticized based on the decisions or perspectives of others. We are strong, well-educated professional women with words of our own to explain what we are going through and how we want to proceed. We have chosen individually and collectively to use our words carefully and selectively in public so as not to add fuel to the media fire which has been extremely hurtful to all of us. Some of the political tactics and debates surrounding this situation have made it challenging to proceed with a restorative justice process in the way we wished and these outside factors have caused renewed harms. At times, the volume of public opinion has drowned out our voices on what we need and want in this situation. We feel, for example, that our views were not central to the decision making process to segregate members of our class known to be involved in the Facebook posts. While this decision may have satisfied others’ needs or interests, it has done nothing for us in terms of instilling a sense of safety or respect. Instead, it fragmented and alienated us at a time when we were particularly in need of support from our class community. Many have asserted that all women feel unsafe, but this is not the case for us – we feel safe with the members of the Facebook group involved in this restorative process.

The restorative process has provided a very important space for us to engage safely and respectfully with our colleagues and others to convey our perspectives and needs. The process allows us to be involved in a manner that both respects and values our unique perspectives and the level of commitment and connection we desire. Additionally, it allows us to address underlying systemic and institutional issues influencing the climate and culture in which we live and learn. We want this process to make a significant contribution to bringing about a change in that culture and hope that we will be given the respect, time and space needed to do this work.

From All Participants of the Class of DDS2015 involved in the Restorative Justice Process

We are all committed to working together within the restorative justice process to deal with the specific and broader issues and harms connected to the Facebook group. Through this process we are dealing with the immediate incident at hand while also investigating the contributing factors that got us here as a class, faculty, and university. We hope this letter sheds some light on our process so far, on what we hope to accomplish, and on some of the challenges we have faced. We believe that the education and perspective that we are gaining through our participation in the restorative justice process will allow us to be better health-care providers, colleagues, and representatives of Dalhousie University. We ask, as a group, that our privacy and our right to pursue this restorative process off the public stage be respected. The constant public attention has been harmful and even sometimes threatening to us, our families and friends. We will engage with the broader communities and issues involved through the restorative process, but first need to continue to work to understand and address the immediate harms involved. We hope that through this process our voices and experiences will make significant contributions to the important public discussions about sexism, misogyny, inclusion, and professionalism.

But I want to make it very clear that I need to be sure that the protections afforded me are the same as a proceeding before a court – the right to counsel who would be permitted to speak on my behalf; the right of my counsel to call or subpoena witnesses and to cross-examine witnesses; the right to have my counsel question me to outline my evidence before any cross examination; the right of my counsel to object to irrelevant or inflammatory questions; the right to make final submissions …. and of course the right to an open-minded jury.

These protections are necessary given the palpable apprehension of bias in what I contend is a purely politically motivated set of charges in a chamber that has not demonstrated it is prepared to rise above party politics.

My very real concern remains the nature of the sanctions the Government intends to impose – suspension – or more accurately expulsion – without pay, no resources or benefits, including no health benefits – and that is a troubling prospect for a cancer survivor – so any hearing or process undertaken must provide the same procedural safeguards as a court of law.

The motion to suspend me is baseless and premature, and likely beyond the scope of this chamber.

The Internal Economy and Deloitte reports have not yet been tabled here and the language of the motion is neither justified nor accurate – you cannot concoct false charges on a whim.

The Government, through Senator Carignan, has truly put the cart before the horse – the sentencing before the trial – and that is why it would be both unfair and troubling if his motion proceeds.

If it does, each and every one of you will seriously have to consider whether this is a place of sober second thought, or a place where anyone who enters must blindly follow a political master’s dictates.

The rule of law would have to be ignored by each and every one of you who decides to vote for the motion.

Some have suggested that some day I will get my day in court.

Everyone knows the RCMP has been called in to investigate.

So why try and convict me here and now.

Why would we not await the outcome of that process – you are the ones that called the RCMP in in the first place – you even sent them your report – you won’t even wait for the investigation to conclude.

Why is the Senate acting as accuser, judge, jury and executioner before I’ve had that day in court?

That is exactly why this whole process is flawed.

And if this chamber can take this extreme action with regard to a sitting senator, imagine what it could do to an ordinary citizen who crosses the government of the day.

We live in a nation that has a Charter or Rights and Freedoms that applies to every law and every citizen.

For the Senate of Canada, itself a creation of our Constitution, to decide that the constitutional protections afforded to each and every Canadian are to be disregarded here is to bring the Senate itself into disrepute.

We have spent centuries evolving away from the divine rule of kings. Due process and the rule of law are all we have to protect us from the tyranny of those with power and from the passion of the mob.

When a government chooses to flout due process to go after a perceived enemy, it’s very hard to fight it.

And for this chamber to attempt to impose a legal sanction is beyond your constitutional powers – surely you must know that.

“Gross negligence”, as any lawyer will tell you, is a very specific legal term with a very specific and serious meaning.

This is a decision for the courts, or a formal judicial hearing, not for this chamber.

By throwing a member of this Senate under the bus, finding her guilty without a fair hearing such as any other Canadian could expect – a right guaranteed us by the Charter – to proceed without the evidence having been adduced and considered on which the charge in the motion is based – is a fundamental affront to Canadian democracy – and makes a mockery of this chamber.

This charade is supposedly about preserving the reputation of this place – but the real intent is to remove a perceived liability – namely me.

“Gross negligence” is not found in Internal Economy’s nor Deloitte’s reports – although you don’t officially know that because neither has been tabled and debated here.

This issue is no longer about expenses or audits or transparency or accountability or even about the reputation of this chamber – it about the abuse of power.

If, as I suspect, Senator Carignan is taking direction from the PMO, then this process is not in the interests of an independent, functioning and effective Senate – although it is most clearly in the interests of those who want to abolish this chamber.

It’s also designed to appease the party faithful before the Conservative party convention at the end of the month.

It is intended to intimidate – not only me but others in this chamber. It is about political expediency – to get rid of someone it considers to be a political liability.

They are doing this based on negative public opinion whipped up by the news media who used confidential and sometimes personal information leaked to them by members of this chamber – at least that is what I have been told by some knowledgeable people.

These were targeted leaks, many of them incorrect, designed to cast my conduct in the worst possible light.

They were personal and vindictive – and violated all the rules of this place.

My lawyer wrote to the Senate and to the chair of the subcommittee months ago asking for an investigation into 14 documented leaks – there were many more – but we never even received a reply – and of course there was no investigation.

We are entitled to that investigation under the rules.

We believe those leaks were orchestrated in large measure by Senators LeBreton and Stewart-Olsen.

This whole proceeding against me, plus the leaks and the lack of an opportunity and legitimate forum in which to defend myself is backroom politics of the most odious kind – rooting out those that have fallen from favor or sending them into exile – it is, as my lawyer has said, Kafka-esque.

For example, one of the senators who sits in judgment of all of us, who had her sights trained on me from the beginning, Senator Stewart-Olsen, has recently had questions raised about her own probity in relation to her residential expense claims.

But of course there will be no Deloitte audit in her case.

Apparently, the Committee on Internal Economy, of which she has long been a member, intends to consider her matter in private.

This is a double standard – she gets kid glove treatment and I’m unfairly singled out for a retroactive audit.

She and Marjory LeBreton could not abide the fact that I was outspoken in caucus, or critical of their leadership – or that my level of activity brought me into the public eye and once garnered the praise of the prime minister. They resented that – they resented me being an activist senator.

In this chamber, Senator Marjory LeBreton derided me, accusing me of having an inflated view of my role.

“This narcissism” … she said … “is the crux of the situation before us.”

In fact, the crux of the situation is not about narcissism – not hers or mine or anyone else’s – the crux of this matter is the lack of due process and a flawed system that allows personal vendettas to be indulged.

In my case, there was a secret investigation of my activities and expenses that went on for months – I only learned about that much later. I was not even told last November when Senator LeBreton made her allegations and refused to cite her basis for alleging I had misspent Senate funds.

Still my office immediately began our own detailed examination.

We scoured the books and when we found mistakes, we acknowledged them and I repaid the amounts immediately.

That was before Deloitte was engaged to conduct a so-called independent audit.

When in the New Year that outside audit began, I cooperated fully.

My assistant and I worked night and day verifying timelines, searching out supporting documentation for each and every event – and there were many.

Being an activist senator meant saying ‘yes’ to as many of the invitations I received as possible.

I never went anywhere that I was not invited – and my claims were never disputed at the time.

Still, despite the cooperation by me and my office, the Deloitte audit was extended again and again, finally to cover my entire tenure as a senator.

I was cautioned by the then-chair of the committee, Senator Tkachuk, to limit the amount of information I was providing – but the real problem was that Deloitte had been given marching orders by Internal Economy.

The committee was angry that Deloitte had actually said that Senators Duffy and Brazeau had not violated any Senate rules, and that the rules were contradictory and confusing.

The committee wanted a different story from Deloitte in my case, so they were told to apply the new travel policy that had come into force in June, 2012, retroactively to each and every one of my claims back to the beginning of my time here in 2009 – retroactivity is ugly and it is unconscionable.

It was designed to inflate the numbers and to inflame public opinion.

In other words, they had to exaggerate the total amount of my alleged misspending so that the public outcry would justify the radical response we see in the motion they now propose.

Just to be clear, when asked, Deloitte said there was no evidence of deliberate misrepresentation or fraud or fiddling with the books, as the media reported.

They spoke with former staff members who agreed.

And by their own admission, Deloitte conceded they had no standard by which to judge my activities.

They interviewed no senators about what constituted Senate business, nor reviewed anyone else’s expenses for comparison.

Interestingly, I’ve had several independent auditors tell me they were shocked that Deloitte would agree to audit my expenses under rules that were not in place when those expenses were incurred.

Today’s rules, Deloitte said, were applied to yesterday because, they were told they were the same as the old rules.

Not true.

A Record of Decision by the Committee on Internal Economy says in several places that the Travel Policy is new – including Appendix A, which lists travel that is acceptable or not.

There were no such examples provided in previous documents.

Prior to the new rules coming into force, I’ve been unable to find any rule of this place that forbade speaking at a fundraising or a partisan event so long as there wasn’t an election campaign in progress.

So, honorable senators, the travel rules were considerably different before June 2012, and yet those June 2012 rules were applied retroactively to me.

When I was appointed to the Senate, I knew it could be a platform for the causes in which I deeply believe, just as Senator Dallaire works to stop the exploitation of child soldiers, and Senator Munson works actively to support families with autistic children.

And so I used that platform – I traveled the country talking about Afghanistan and the decisions facing Canada about our role in the world.

I did so as a senator. I was asked to speak because I was a member of this chamber.

But more than that, I knew that the Conservative leadership expected me to work hard outside this chamber too, not only for the good of Canadians but for the Conservative Party of Canada – because I had a track record as a communicator and a reputation as a fair and honest person.

Prime Minister Chretien asked me to serve as consul general in New York after the 9-11 attacks.

Much was at stake for our country – I was an activist diplomat.

That is part of the reason Prime Minister Harper appointed me to the Afghan Paneland then to the Senate.

I work hard and I may be guilty of being unable to say no when asked, as a senator, to come and speak.

But I did so willingly, gladly – recognizing the responsibility bestowed upon me to reach out to all Canadians.

I always spoke about issues of public interest and public policy, which, by the way, is permitted by the current travel policy and was not forbidden by past rules.

It was my job to raise the profile of this chamber and to make the case for Senate reform – I agreed to term limits.

I am privileged to have this great honour of being a senator from Saskatchewan – it is my home and it is the place that taught me the value of hard work.

My life is my vocation and my avocation. My function is my duty. It’s no 9 to 5 job.

You all now know I was subjected to a secret investigation, an extended audit process in which details of my life and activities were leaked to the media, my reputation was attacked and I was summarily thrown out of the Conservative Party.

On Friday, May 17th of the May long weekend, I received a panicked phone call ordering me to resign immediately from the Conservative caucus.

It was after 5 eastern time and Senator LeBreton and the prime minister’s principal secretary Ray Novak said they were speaking on behalf of the prime minister and that my being a part of the Conservative caucus was now an embarrassment to the prime minister.

When I attempted to argue that absolutely nothing had changed in my case and to question them about why they were demanding my immediate resignation, I was told again they were speaking for the prime minister, he wanted me gone.

Because the audit was not even finished, we negotiated with the two a statement that said I would recuse myself from caucus, not resign. I had not done anything wrong.

Less than 10 minutes later, Senator LeBreton broke the deal and publicly declared that I had resigned.

My lawyers immediately sent an email to Senator LeBreton and Ray Novak, demanding an explanation.

There was no reply. To this day there has been no reply.

We followed up with another request and to date no reply to that letter either.

Now, having been thrown out of the caucus, the show trial continued. In mid-August I was told I could show up at a closed door Internal Economy meeting where I could make no opening statement and where I was denied legal representation. Once again I was denied due process.

In the end I was ordered by the Committee to pay back the money spent doing the job I was asked to do – objectives promoted by the Senate itself in its own annual report – and I quote:

Modern telecommunications and air travel make it possible for parliamentarians to do much more, much more quickly than was possible in the early days of Parliament …

They organize or speak at events, attend and present to conferences, publish research, raise matters with Cabinet ministers and provide credibility and support to the causes they believe in.

All of you sitting in this chamber have to think about what you have done and where you have been in the past two years, or perhaps your entire tenure – doing your job as a senator.

If todays’ travel and other rules are applied to you retroactively, many of you too may be asked to pay back.

I’m not just speaking theoretically – many of you have privately told me you are concerned.

Shouldn’t the same standard apply to all of us?

Read this motion very carefully – today my name is there.

Tomorrow, next month or next year it could just as easily be yours.

My understanding is that the Auditor General’s audit on all of you will be restricted to a start time of fiscal 2011-2012. But what if the Auditor General demands a broader mandate or makes the rules retroactive?

If this keeps up, if this place continues to function without even a nod to due process, or to the rule of law – then, to paraphrase Senator Segal, eventually you could run out of buses … and the people to throw under them.

If the Senate proceeds with this motion, I believe it is the beginning of the end of this chamber.

It will have denied due process. Surely I am entitled to expect this to be a place where the rule of law is respected – after all, you are all lawmakers.

For the better part of a year the Government has sought to embarrass me and undermine me in the public eye.

It has said things about me which are not true.

This has left my reputation – hard earned over 40 years – in tatters.

Now the Government wants to deprive me of my income or my ability to earn one in the future – so that I cannot afford to mount a proper legal defence.

They hoped all this would force me to resign.

But despite the clear, vindictive intent of this motion, you will never break my spirit.

Correction: An earlier version of this text wrote the phone call took place on the Friday of the August long weekend. The date was incorrectly stated.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/for-the-record-pamela-wallins-prepared-statement-to-the-senate/feed/16John Baird’s speech to the United Nations General Assemblyhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/john-bairds-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/john-bairds-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly/#commentsMon, 30 Sep 2013 14:41:39 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=427470Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird addressed the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 30, 2013 in New York City. Here is a copy of his speech, …

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird addressed the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Sept. 30, 2013 in New York City. Here is a copy of his speech, for the record:

As we gather near Ground Zero, site of the World Trade Center mass murder, I wish first to honour the victims of terrorism:

I honour all victims, everywhere, including those killed and wounded at the Westgate Shopping Mall in Nairobi.

Tragically, we lost two Canadians, including a Canadian diplomat.

There is no more fitting venue to honour the life of Annemarie Desloges and her service than right here, in front of these United Nations.

The crime of terror is an assault on all people.

And, in its wake, the human family is one.

One in pain. One in mourning. One in our resolve that evil will never triumph.

At this moment of grief, the oneness of humankind is the theme of my remarks today.

Allow me to begin with an observation drawn from the Canadian experience.

The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador was the last province to join Canada, but it is the site of the earliest known European settlement in the New World. L’Anse aux Meadows is more than a thousand years old.

We consider the province’s capital city, St. John’s, to be the oldest English settlement in North America, dating back to 1497.

The early Newfoundland settlements are the subject of significant archeological activity. Among the artifacts commonly found is a three-handled drinking mug, known as a “tyg.”

The three handles are designed for sharing. During the 17th century, it was common to share eating and drinking utensils.

Further research reveals the tyg mug is not unique to Canadian and English history. On the contrary, cups with three or more handles are common to many of the world’s cultures. Indeed, nearly three millennia ago, Homer wrote in the Iliad of a multi-handled mug.

The tyg and its many counterparts around the world are tangible reminders not just that eating and drinking are social activities but that, as long as human beings have inhabited this planet, sustenance and the necessaries of life have been community endeavours.

Human beings share from necessity. We cooperate to survive. We form communities because that is our natural state.

As Cicero observed, “We were born to unite with our fellow men, and to join in community with the human race.”

Animated by the same spirit of community, the Charter of the United Nations declares that our goals include “to live together,” to be “neighbours,” and “to unite.”

The very first words of the UN Charter make clear that this organization is a body of, by and for human beings.

It begins, “We the peoples of the United Nations.”

Not “We the countries.”

Or “We the governments.”

Not “We the political leaders.”

“We the peoples.”

An important reminder of why and on whose behalf we are here.

Here at the UN, Canada targets its efforts on securing tangible results for the human family. It is much more important to consider what the United Nations is achieving than how the UN arranges its affairs.

Canada’s government doesn’t seek to have our values or our principled foreign policy validated by elites who would rather “go along to get along.”

The billions who are hungry, or lack access to clean water, or are displaced or cannot read and write do not care how many members sit on the Security Council. But they do need to know that their brothers and sisters in humankind will walk with them through the darkness.

Peace, prosperity and freedom—these are indeed the conditions that have been sought by human communities from the beginning of recorded time: To live in peace. To live in prosperity. To live in freedom.

Of these priorities, peace is the foremost objective of the United Nations.

It is no surprise that the UN Charter mentions the word “peace” four dozen times.

Sadly, “peace” the word is easier to locate than “peace” the condition.

Since the moment this organization was created, not a day has passed without the human family being pained by war somewhere on this planet.

Almost always, the suffering is felt by the most vulnerable among us.

And, far too often, this involves women and violence.

In the context of war, rape and serious sexual violence are war crimes. I have met girls who were victims of this very war crime, and their stories are horrific. The war criminals involved must be identified, pursued, prosecuted and punished.

Earlier this year, Canada and other G-8 nations agreed to treat sexual violence in conflict as a violation of the Geneva Conventions. I applaud the United Kingdom and U.K. Foreign Secretary William Hague for their work in this area. But he would be the first to acknowledge that the fight to eradicate this crime has been led by women, including Special Representative [of the UN Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict] Zainab Hawa Bangura.

Every year, millions of girls, some as young as age nine, are forced into marriage.

Since I began these remarks, 100 children have been forced into marriage; 1,100 per hour; more than 26,000 per day.

The effects of early forced marriage are documented and beyond dispute. Early forced marriage harms health, halts education, destroys opportunity and enslaves young women in a life of poverty.

A young woman once recounted her wedding date. She remembered, “It was the day I left school.”

No country is immune from this scourge.

This is a global problem. A problem for humanity.

Forced marriage is rape; it is violence against women. Early forced marriage is child rape, violence against young girls. The practice is abhorrent and indefensible.

We condemn it.

Even though some might prefer that we kept quiet.

The discomfort of the audience is of small concern, particularly in the context of a crime that calls to heaven for justice.

If this body does not act to protect young girls, who will?

Another way to protect the vulnerable is to improve the health of mothers, newborns and children so that we can reduce the number of deaths.

I am proud that our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has led a global effort—the Muskoka Initiative—to reduce maternal and infant mortality and to improve the health of mothers and children in the world’s poorest countries. It’s about half of the world’s population; all of its potential.

While these efforts—to eradicate sexual violence in conflict, to eliminate early forced marriage and to improve maternal and newborn health—are essential, we must do more than react to crises.

We must invest in opportunities for women and girls.

We must ensure that women participate fully in all parts of our society and in all the countries of these United Nations. This will help us build a stronger, more secure, more prosperous and more peaceful world.

It is in every nation’s self-interest to ensure every young girl realizes her full potential.

And it is from the perspective of the human family, one family, that we must address other threats to peace and security.

Among the most urgent crises remains the violence in Syria.

Canada’s position is clear. We support the Syrian people, the innocent people caught up in this senseless violence, and those who work on their behalf. We will never support a brutal and illegitimate regime that has unleashed weapons of mass destruction on its own people. Nor will we tolerate extremism and terrorism as alternatives to Assad’s tyranny.

The people of Canada have been generous in helping those most in need.

When success is achieved, it is important to recognize it. The near-impossible work of the UN World Food Programme must be applauded, and Canada has responded by being the second-largest single-country donor in the world. Their work in Syria is paramount and has not gone unnoticed. I also commend the work of the UNHCR [United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees] in providing assistance to the refugees fleeing this terrible conflict, and the generosity of Syria’s neighbours in providing safe haven.

Canada joins the entire world in seeking a political resolution to the conflict. Canada supports a peaceful, democratic and pluralistic Syria that protects the rights of all communities.

But let us not confuse a peaceful, negotiated outcome with equivocation or moral uncertainty. There can be no moral ambiguity about the use of chemical weapons on civilians.

Today, September 30, is a dark reminder of the price of accommodation with evil.

It is the 75th anniversary of the Munich Agreement, by which Czechoslovakia’s freedom was sacrificed to appease the Nazi regime. The appeasers claimed they had won “peace for our time.” In fact, their abandoning of principle was a calamity for the world.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel, a Holocaust survivor who was imprisoned in Auschwitz, has been even more blunt:

“Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant.”

Just as we are not neutral or silent on the crimes being committed against the Syrian people, neither is Canada neutral on Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself.

There can be no bargaining over Israel’s existence. While dialogue is a virtue, there can be no virtuous discussion with anyone wedded to Israel’s destruction.

Today, the Jewish people are masters of their own fate, like other nations, in their own sovereign Jewish state. Like other nations, Israel has the right to defend itself, by itself.

Canada fundamentally believes peace is achievable. That Palestinians and Israelis and their neighbours can live side by side, in peace and security.

We, like many nations, wish to see a prosperous Palestinian state living in peace with its Jewish neighbour.

That’s why, although we sometimes have fundamental differences on how statehood is achieved, Canada is providing significant assistance to build the institutions that are vital to the establishment of a viable future state. In the West Bank, Canada is contributing greatly to economic, security and justice initiatives.

Recent developments in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority are encouraging. I salute the leadership and courage of the Israeli Prime Minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] and the Palestinian Authority’s President [Mahmoud Abbas].

I commend U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry for his leadership in this area, and we must all commit ourselves to this cause, united by the prospect of peace.

I look forward to the day when Israeli and Palestinian children can live side by side in peace and security in a Jewish and a Palestinian state.

Ladies and gentlemen, dialogue is important, yes. But our dialogue must be a prelude to action. And action must mean achieving results and making a difference.

Take the recent statements coming from the regime in Iran.

Some observers see encouraging signs, but sound bites do not remove threats to global security. Kind words, a smile and a charm offensive are not a substitute for real action.

We will welcome and acknowledge reform, if and when it comes.

By this we will know when genuine reform has occurred: Has there been real, measurable, material improvement in the lives of the Iranian people and in the security of the world?

Not yet!

We will judge the regime on the basis of its action and results.

The P5+1 [the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany] has had five rounds of formal negotiations with Iran in the past two years. While everyone says the meetings have been “productive,” the fact remains we haven’t seen any change in Iran’s actions.

Next year, nothing would make Canada more pleased than to see a change in Iran’s nuclear ambitions. A change to its terrible human rights record. And an end to Iran’s material support for terrorism.

Now is the time for the global community to maintain tough sanctions against Iran in order that it take a different path on its nuclear program.

The Iranian people want peace. And the Iranian people are suffering great hardship because of their government.

Canada wants the Iranian people to be able to access a life of freedom and prosperity for themselves.

And how do we as a human family achieve and maintain prosperity?

Through free trade among open societies operating under transparent, consistent and fair rules.

Canada continues to diversify its markets because it is a trading nation.

We are aggressively pursuing free trade agreements with other nations.

Bounded by three oceans, with the second-largest land mass in the world, Canada literally is open to the world.

We are both deepening existing economic relationships and building new ones. Whether with China, now Canada’s second-largest trading partner, or the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] countries, where Canadian trade and investment ties are dramatically increasing, or the Pacific Alliance, which provides new and exciting opportunities, or the European Union, where we are negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement, Canada and Canadians are supporting market liberalization. In the process, ordinary lives are becoming enriched, and entire societies are becoming stronger.

But the quest for prosperity must never come at the expense of our commitment to freedom.

Prosperity is also inextricably linked to peace. After all, those who lack security usually lack the means to provide for themselves and their families.

With economic opportunity, a fruit vendor in Tunisia may not have felt compelled to end his life seeking the dignity to provide for his family.

A young man in Afghanistan may never feel compelled to join terrorist elements simply to raise his children—to ensure their lives are better than the one he lived.

I will always remember the seven-year old girl I met at Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan. Her parents had made the difficult decision to leave their home and to seek refuge in another country—braving hardship because they were motivated, like all parents, by the desire to keep their family safe.

I asked how she was doing. With tears in her eyes, she said, simply, “I don’t like it here. I want to go home.”

Heart-wrenching.

And millions of people are in the same tragic position—millions of members of the human family who cannot even begin to contemplate prosperity until a more basic need, their need for security, is addressed.

The global family will never achieve the prosperity that is our full potential unless we address the peace and security concerns that shackle human opportunity.

Everyone has an interest in contributing to the solution, because peace and security ultimately ensure the freedom of the individual. That’s why we need the people of these United Nations gathered here to promote this freedom.

For the people of these United Nations, no minority is more sacred than the individual, and the freedom of the individual.

Freedom from oppression. Freedom from discrimination. Freedom to worship, to think, to speak, to love, to believe. Freedom to be.

Human freedom can be exercised, and sadly limited, in countless ways.

Religious persecution continues in too many places.

Since we gathered here last year, the world has witnessed:

bombings of mosques in Iraq and Pakistan and a Catholic church in Tanzania;

attacks against Hindu, Buddhist and Muslim places of worship in Burma and Bangladesh;

the bloody persecution of Christians in Syria;

attacks on Coptic Christian churches in Egypt;

attacks on a mosque and on a Catholic church in Sri Lanka;

the detention of Sri Lankan Muslim leader Azad Sally;

the murders of Catholic worshippers in Nigeria; and

the Iranian regime’s ongoing persecution of the Bahá’í.

Canada just this year opened an Office of Religious Freedom. Its mandate: to promote freedom of religion and belief as a foreign policy priority. To combat the enslavement into fear, by those who seek to intimidate and undermine the right to worship freely. In peace—and in harmony.

We reject the pernicious notion that human dignity can be sliced up, compartmentalized or compromised.

In a pluralistic society it is impossible to protect some human rights and freedoms while infringing others.

All freedoms are rooted in the inherent dignity of human beings.

Whether the issue is religious freedom, sexual freedom, political freedom or any other freedom, some people ask:

What business is it of ours? What interest do we have in events outside our borders?

Our business is a shared humanity. Our interest is the dignity of humankind.

Many assaults on human dignity have common roots. I refer to neo-fascist ideology, masquerading in different forms, and the threat that it poses to individual freedom.

I spoke earlier of the anniversary of the Munich Agreement.

What the signatories claimed as a triumph of practical politics was in fact a craven capitulation that betrayed human dignity and bankrupted the peace it purported to secure.

It was wrong then to underestimate and to appease fascism, just as it is now to underestimate its modern incarnation.

Extremism that subjugates human dignity and crushes individual freedom beneath rigid ideology must be opposed for what it is.

One year ago today, the world lost the great Somali poet known as Gaarriye. Though his pen has been silenced, the inspiring lyrics remain.

It was Gaarriye who wrote:

“And tell them this: our purpose is peace; our password ‘Freedom’;
Our aim, equality;
Our way the way of light.”

In other words: Peace. Prosperity. Freedom. Three universal human priorities.

Like three handles of a mug from which we all drink. Three values that all humanity shares.

As I close, I cannot help but reflect on three young girls, and my heart breaks for them:

The child bride: “It was the day I left school.”

The girl who was a victim of rape and sexual violence.

The refugee: “I want to go home.”

We are not here to achieve results for governments or political leaders.

We are here to protect and defend these three girls and seven billion other members of the human family. Let us remember this as we embark on discussions to shape a new global agenda, focusing on those most in need.

I am confident that everyone here feels the overwhelming honour and privilege it is to serve our people. It is not without great challenge and responsibility. But we all must stand up and deliver on this unique mandate for the people, for it is the people who expect nothing less.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/john-bairds-speech-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly/feed/5Pamela Wallin: ‘I have not done anything wrong. I am not guilty of any misconduct’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/pamela-wallin-i-have-not-done-anything-wrong-i-am-not-guilty-of-any-misconduct/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/pamela-wallin-i-have-not-done-anything-wrong-i-am-not-guilty-of-any-misconduct/#commentsFri, 13 Sep 2013 20:48:30 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=422560Sen. Pamela Wallin just released the following statement on her expenses. …As I promised I would, today I personally reimbursed the Government of Canada in the amount which the Senate’s

As I promised I would, today I personally reimbursed the Government of Canada in the amount which the Senate’s Internal Economy Committee concluded I was not entitled to claim, together with interest on that money.

Personal cheques amounting to one hundred thousand, six hundred dollars and ninety-eight cents ($100,600.98) plus interest were submitted to the Senate Finance Directorate and I have notified the chair of the Internal Economy Committee of this.

Although I fundamentally disagree with the methodology used in arriving at that figure, particularly since the amount was calculated using newly created rules to examine past expenses, I do not want to burden the people of Canada and, in particular the people of Saskatchewan, by engaging in a protracted legal debate about the matter.

I wish to make it clear. I was not treated fairly by the Deloitte review, which was not conducted in accordance with generally accepted accounting principle, nor have I been treated fairly by the Senate Committee. Evidence that casts doubt on the correctness of the amounts owing was either ignored or disregarded during the review.

When I submitted expense claims, I did so in good faith, honestly believing that the reimbursement was appropriate. If mistakes were made, I am responsible for those, but there was never a deliberate attempt to thwart the travel policy that was in place at the time the claims were submitted.

Unfortunately, the Senate Committee succumbed to a “lynch mob” mentality. There was no regard to procedural or substantive fairness. I am disappointed and angry about the way in which this matter was handled, and any implication that I behaved dishonestly.

I welcome an independent and objective review by the RCMP and I intend to co-operate fully with any such review. I have not done anything wrong. I am not guilty of any misconduct. Accordingly I will not resign as a senator. I will continue to act for the people of Saskatchewan and Canada, fulfilling the duties of a senator that have been entrusted to me.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/pamela-wallin-i-have-not-done-anything-wrong-i-am-not-guilty-of-any-misconduct/feed/16Transcript: A letter from Jeff Bezos to Washington Post staffhttp://www.macleans.ca/news/world/transcript-a-letter-from-jeff-bezos-to-washington-post-staff/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/transcript-a-letter-from-jeff-bezos-to-washington-post-staff/#commentsMon, 05 Aug 2013 21:28:13 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=410806Amazon founder and CEO Jeff Bezos has agreed to pay $250 million for The Washington Post. For the record, here’s the letter he issued to staff of that newspaper earlier …

You’ll have heard the news, and many of you will greet it with a degree of apprehension. When a single family owns a company for many decades, and when that family acts for all those decades in good faith, in a principled manner, in good times and in rough times, as stewards of important values – when that family has done such a good job – it is only natural to worry about change.

So, let me start with something critical. The values of The Post do not need changing. The paper’s duty will remain to its readers and not to the private interests of its owners. We will continue to follow the truth wherever it leads, and we’ll work hard not to make mistakes. When we do, we will own up to them quickly and completely.

I won’t be leading The Washington Post day-to-day. I am happily living in “the other Washington” where I have a day job that I love. Besides that, The Post already has an excellent leadership team that knows much more about the news business than I do, and I’m extremely grateful to them for agreeing to stay on.

There will of course be change at The Post over the coming years. That’s essential and would have happened with or without new ownership. The Internet is transforming almost every element of the news business: shortening news cycles, eroding long-reliable revenue sources, and enabling new kinds of competition, some of which bear little or no news-gathering costs. There is no map, and charting a path ahead will not be easy. We will need to invent, which means we will need to experiment. Our touchstone will be readers, understanding what they care about – government, local leaders, restaurant openings, scout troops, businesses, charities, governors, sports – and working backwards from there. I’m excited and optimistic about the opportunity for invention.

Journalism plays a critical role in a free society, and The Washington Post — as the hometown paper of the capital city of the United States — is especially important. I would highlight two kinds of courage the Grahams have shown as owners that I hope to channel. The first is the courage to say wait, be sure, slow down, get another source. Real people and their reputations, livelihoods and families are at stake. The second is the courage to say follow the story, no matter the cost. While I hope no one ever threatens to put one of my body parts through a wringer, if they do, thanks to Mrs. Graham’s example, I’ll be ready.

I want to say one last thing that’s really not about the paper or this change in ownership. I have had the great pleasure of getting to know Don very well over the last ten plus years. I do not know a finer man.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/transcript-a-letter-from-jeff-bezos-to-washington-post-staff/feed/0Senator James Cowan: ‘The faith of Canadians has been badly shaken’http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/senator-james-cowan-the-faith-of-canadians-has-been-badly-shaken/
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/senator-james-cowan-the-faith-of-canadians-has-been-badly-shaken/#commentsWed, 22 May 2013 10:03:18 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=386256Prepared remarks for Senator James S. Cowan, leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Cowan gave the speech during debate on a report on Senator Mike Duffy:
…
“The eyes of

Prepared remarks for Senator James S. Cowan, leader of the Opposition in the Senate. Cowan gave the speech during debate on a report on Senator Mike Duffy:

“The eyes of Canadians are on the Senate today with an intensity, frustration and anger which has seldom been seen before. I could not have imagined a week ago Thursday when we adjourned for the Parliamentary break that events would have unfolded as they have.

It is no exaggeration to say that the faith of Canadians in the core institutions of our Parliamentary democracy have been badly shaken by those events.

Colleagues, we need to reflect upon what each of us has said and done – and not said and not done – over the past two weeks.

Did our actions or inactions individually or collectively bring credit or discredit to ourselves and this institution?

We on this side of the house have consistently supported measures aimed at investigating in a fair, open and transparent manner allegations of impropriety on the part of certain of our colleagues. We have insisted that due process be followed and allowed to lead wherever the evidence leads it – including the involvement of outside authorities if that is what is necessary.

Unfortunately that has not been the position of the government.

In normal circumstances, we would support this motion sending the report on Senator Duffy to the Internal Economy Committee for further examination and review.

But colleagues, I must remind you that we are debating the report which Senator Tkachuk tabled here on May 9th and tried to ram through on that day before most of us had even a chance to read it. How wrong that would have been – even without the revelations of the past ten days. On this side, we quite properly insisted that the report be dealt with according to the normal rules- upon our return – a position which I am sure all of us now support in hindsight.

But colleagues, if we send this report back to the committee – and the auditors – for further investigation and report, what confidence can we have that they will be allowed to do their work without political interference from outside – from the leadership of the Senate or the House of Commons or from the Prime Minister’s Office? In view of what they have witnessed to date, I do not believe that ordinary Canadians would have any confidence in this proposed approach.

It is time for us to acknowledge that serious concerns have been raised publicly about how we have dealt with this matter and about our ability to deal with it properly in the days ahead.

This morning, in the National Post, Andrew Coyne began his column on the crisis by referring to provisions of the Senate Conflict of Interest Code, the Parliament of Canada Act, and the Criminal Code, saying that “`serious` does not begin to describe” what is going on.

Colleagues, there can be no business as usual. Enough is enough. This matter needs to be turned over to the appropriate authorities.

In a scrum I gave in the Senate foyer on February 26th, I was quoted as saying that if further action was required as a result of the audit reports, I certainly believed that that action would be taken.

In view of all that has taken place, in view of all that we have learned over the last several days, I am not prepared to stand before Canadians to say that no further action is required. Further action is required.

Consequently, I move that the 22nd report not be referred back to our Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration, but that it be referred immediately to the appropriate law enforcement agency, and that the Senate co-operate fully with any investigation that may result.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/senator-james-cowan-the-faith-of-canadians-has-been-badly-shaken/feed/1Full text of Mark Carney’s last public speech as BoC governorhttp://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/full-text-of-mark-carneys-last-public-speech-as-boc-governor/
http://www.macleans.ca/economy/economicanalysis/full-text-of-mark-carneys-last-public-speech-as-boc-governor/#commentsTue, 21 May 2013 17:14:19 +0000Econowatchhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=386031The governor is speaking at the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal today. Here are his prepared remarks:
Mark Carney Remarks-210513…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/front-page-gallery-margaret-thatchers-final-farewell/feed/1Barack Obama on gun vote: ‘a pretty shameful day for Washington’http://www.macleans.ca/general/barack-obama-on-gun-vote-a-pretty-shameful-day-for-washington/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/barack-obama-on-gun-vote-a-pretty-shameful-day-for-washington/#commentsThu, 18 Apr 2013 00:24:54 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=373375Here’s what U.S. President Barack Obama had to say this afternoon after the Senate defeated his gun control legislation:Mark Barden:… Hello. My name is Mark Barden. Just four months

Here’s what U.S. President Barack Obama had to say this afternoon after the Senate defeated his gun control legislation:

Mark Barden: Hello. My name is Mark Barden. Just four months ago, my wife Jackie and I lost our son, and our children, James and Natalie, they lost their little brother Daniel. Daniel was a first-grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Our sweet, 7-year-old Daniel was one of 20 children, six adults lost on December 14th. I have to say it feels like it was just yesterday.

In our deepest grief, we were supported by the love of our families and comforted by the love and prayers we received from millions of America, from every corner of the country.

What happened in Newtown can happen anywhere. In any instant, any dad in America could be in my shoes. No one should feel the pain. No one should feel our pain or the pain felt by the tens of thousands of people who’ve lost loved ones to senseless gun violence.

And that’s why we’re here. Two weeks ago, 12 of us from Newtown came to meet with U.S. senators and have a conversation about how to bring common-sense solutions to the issues of gun violence. We came with a sense of hope, optimistic that real conversation could begin that would ultimately save the lives of so many Americans. We met with dozens of Democrats and Republicans and shared with them pictures of our children, our spouses, our parents who lost their lives on December 14th.

Expanded background checks wouldn’t have saved our loved ones, but still we came to support the bipartisan proposal from two senators, both with “A” ratings from the NRA — a common-sense proposal supported by 90 percent of Americans. It‘s a proposal that will save lives without interfering with the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.

We’ll return home now, disappointed but not defeated. We return home with the determination that change will happen — maybe not today, but it will happen. It will happen soon. We’ve always known this would be a long road, and we don’t have the luxury of turning back. We will keep moving forward and build public support for common-sense solutions in the areas of mental health, school safety, and gun safety.

We take strength from the children and loved ones that we lost, and we carry a great faith in the American people.

On behalf of the Sandy Hook Promise, I would like to thank President Obama, Vice President Biden for their leadership and for standing strong and continuing to fight for a safer America. I would like to thank Senators Toomey, Manchin, Schumer and Kirk on coming together to seek common ground on legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and save lives.

And I would like to thank Connecticut’s Senators Blumenthal and Murphy. They’ve been right with us. They stood by us right from the very beginning. From the first few hours after this tragedy they were with us.

We will not be defeated. We are not defeated, and we will not be defeated. We are here now; we will always be here because we have no other choice. We are not going away. And every day, as more people are killed in this country because of gun violence, our determination grows stronger.

We leave Washington hoping that others, both here and across the country, will join us in making the Sandy Hook Promise, a pledge that we’d had great hope that more U.S. senators would take literally. I’d like to end by repeating the words with which the Sandy Hook Promise begins: Our hearts are broken. Our spirit is not.

Thank you. It is now my great pleasure to introduce the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama.

U.S. President Barack Obama: A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies — including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers — this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.

Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders — not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.

By now, it’s well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that’s already the law.

And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.

A majority of senators voted “yes” to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.

I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican — both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA — come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.

As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.

Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both — she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.

In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter.

And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.

But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics — the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.

And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse — any excuse — to vote “no.”

One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand — if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.

And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.

I’ve heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?

I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. “A prop,” somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.

But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.

But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.

To all the people who supported this legislation — law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are — you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time.

To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one.

The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they’re better organized. They’re better financed. They’ve been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that’s the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can’t get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.

So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.

And that’s the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don’t know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve doing over the last several weeks, last several months.

And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We’re going to have to change. That’s what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn’t happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.

And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago — the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence — I’m assuming that’s not a temporary thing. I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.

I believe we’re going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.

Trudeau: ‘The era of hyphenated Liberals ends right here’

Justin Trudeau used his victory speech to advise Liberals that there is no place for rifts in the party. On stage in front of former prime ministers Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, the new leader of the Liberal party said it is time for the party to move on.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-heralds-demise-of-hyphenated-liberals/feed/2Newtown mother Francine Wheeler delivers Obama’s weekly addresshttp://www.macleans.ca/general/newtown-mother-francine-wheeler-delivers-obamas-weekly-address/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/newtown-mother-francine-wheeler-delivers-obamas-weekly-address/#commentsSat, 13 Apr 2013 13:00:12 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=371299'All I can remember is that awful day waiting for the boy who would never come home'

U.S. President Barack Obama turned over his weekly White House address to Francine Wheeler, a mother from Newtown whose six-year-old son Ben was killed in the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“Since that terrible day in December, thousands more Americans have died, and thousands more families have suffered the pain of losing a loved one to violence,” the White House notes in its introduction to the address. “Now that the Senate has agreed that commonsense gun safety reforms deserve a vote, they must finish the job and pass those reforms to protect our children and our communities. Now is the time for all Americans to help make this a moment of real change.”

Besides VP Joe Biden, Wheeler is the first person other than Obama to deliver the president’s weekly address from the Oval Office. Here is a transcript of what she had to say:

Hi. As you’ve probably noticed, I’m not the President. I’m just a citizen. And as a citizen, I’m here at the White House today because I want to make a difference and I hope you will join me.

My name is Francine Wheeler. My husband, David, is with me. We live in Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

David and I have two sons. Our older son Nate, soon to be 10 years old, is a fourth grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Our younger son, Ben, age six, was murdered in his first-grade classroom on December 14th, exactly four months ago this weekend.

David and I lost our beloved son, but Nate lost his best friend. On what turned out to be the last morning of his life, Ben told me, quite out of the blue, ” I still want to be an architect, Mama, but I also want to be a paleontologist, because that’s what Nate is going to be and I want to do everything Nate does.”

Ben’s love of fun and his excitement at the wonders of life were unmatched His boundless energy kept him running across the soccer field long after the game was over. He couldn’t wait to get to school every morning. He sang with perfect pitch and had just played at his third piano recital. Irrepressibly bright and spirited, Ben experienced life at full tilt.

Until that morning. 20 of our children, and 6 of our educators – gone. Out of the blue.

I’ve heard people say that the tidal wave of anguish our country felt on 12/14 has receded. But not for us. To us, it feels as if it happened just yesterday. And in the four months since we lost our loved ones, thousands of other Americans have died at the end of a gun. Thousands of other families across the United States are also drowning in our grief.

Please help us do something before our tragedy becomes your tragedy.

Sometimes, I close my eyes and all I can remember is that awful day waiting at the Sandy Hook Volunteer Firehouse for the boy who would never come home – the same firehouse that was home to Ben’s Tiger Scout Den 6. But other times, I feel Ben’s presence filling me with courage for what I have to do – for him and all the others taken from us so violently and too soon.

We have to convince the Senate to come together and pass commonsense gun responsibility reforms that will make our communities safer and prevent more tragedies like the one we never thought would happen to us.

When I packed for Washington on Monday, it looked like the Senate might not act at all. Then, after the President spoke in Hartford, and a dozen of us met with Senators to share our stories, more than two-thirds of the Senate voted to move forward.

But that’s only the start. They haven’t yet passed any bills that will help keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. And a lot of people are fighting to make sure they never do.

Now is the time to act. Please join us. You can talk to your Senator, too. Or visit WhiteHouse.gov to find out how you can join the President and get involved.

Help this be the moment when real change begins. From the bottom of my heart, thank you.

Here’s what pundits and players are saying about Justin Trudeau’s performance on Saturday:

Althia Raj, the Huffington Post
“His speech was strongly delivered, showed he can attack his opponents and successfully defuse some of the criticism against him. He showed just how much better a politician he is compared to his opponents, but he still injected some of the corniness and over-performance he is known for.”

Tim Harper, the Toronto Star“Were there any doubters remaining, Justin Trudeau showed Liberals, and any Canadians willing to surrender part of their Saturday afternoon, that he plays in a different league than his leadership challengers. The real question that is still unanswered is what league will a Trudeau-led third party be playing in by 2015?”

John Ibbitson, the Globe and Mail
“If you were looking for more substance in Mr. Trudeau’s final address before voting begins to choose the new leader, you will have found none of it. Not even fuzzy promises to protect the economy without abandoning a social conscience. There were vague commitments to preserving both jobs and the planet, while healing regional words and re-engaging Quebec in the life of the nation. There were jibes at the “negative, divisive politics” of the Conservatives and NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair’s decision “that if you can’t beat them, you might as well join them. But mostly Justin was all about Justin.”

Jesse Kline, the National Post“The challenge for Mr. Trudeau — and judging from the show of support at the convention and his showing in the polls, there’s no reason to believe Mr. Trudeau won’t win — will be to turn rhetoric about presenting a clear vision for Canada’s future and a credible alternative to the Conservatives and the NDP, into actual policy proposals and a campaign that can win the hearts and minds of Canadians.”

Colin Horgan, iPolitics
“By 5 p.m. Saturday it was very clear that if the Liberals are going to throw a hail-mary – that is, going to seriously attempt a full reboot of the party before 2015 to launch it out of third place in the standings – they’d better put the ball in Trudeau’s hands. It’s really just that simple. Anyone who says differently, unfortunately, is hoping for a kind of retooling of the party that isn’t rationally in the cards.”

CBC News
“After a long eight-month leadership campaign, Liberals are preparing to vote for one of the six candidates they think can best lead the party into the next general election in 2015 following a “national showcase” in Toronto Saturday. Montreal Liberal MP Justin Trudeau backed-up his perceived frontrunner status with a passionate plea for the party’s top job.”

Patrick Gossage, the Toronto Star
“In every sense Justin is a new, thoroughly modern Trudeau. Not bored by pressing the flesh, as his father was, but galvanized by meeting ordinary Canadians, the more the better. Not dragged to local political events like his dad, but the master of them, and the master of the rousing stump speech — without notes, and without a phalanx of speech writers.”

Martin Goldfarb, the Toronto Star
What is Justin Trudeau’s brand promise? We don’t know yet. And, as a result, we fundamentally don’t know him. Justin Trudeau should build on the legacy of his father, and add to the lustre of the Just Society. You can win with big, bold initiatives.

Tim Naumetz, the Hill Times
“A Liberal “minivention” of over 1,000 party members did what was intended on Saturday as Justin Trudeau drew the kind of media crushes and crowd adulation that has spooked the Conservative Party, but it also highlighted an unexpected force that Mr. Trudeau will likely be compelled to tackle once, as widely expected, he takes over the party’s helm when leadership election voting ends on April 14.”

Matthew Coutts, Canada Politics
“Trudeau’s speech was the emotional high point in a day-long showcase of Liberal leadership candidates vying to replace outgoing interim leader Bob Rae and bring the party back from near-irrelevance. It didn’t take long for Trudeau to mention his father, former Liberal prime minister Pierre Trudeau. He neither reveled in his lineage nor hid from it. He didn’t hide from much, taking aim at Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives party’s impending attack ads.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/kevin-page-carries-on/feed/1Roger Ebert: ‘A million thumbs up for you’http://www.macleans.ca/general/roger-ebert-a-million-thumbs-up-for-you/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/roger-ebert-a-million-thumbs-up-for-you/#commentsFri, 05 Apr 2013 01:27:24 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=368355[View the story "Roger Ebert: 'Millions of thumbs up for you'" on Storify]…

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/roger-ebert-a-million-thumbs-up-for-you/feed/0PM congratulates Chris Hadfield on ‘stellar’ achievement. (Get it?)http://www.macleans.ca/general/pm-congratulates-chris-hadfield-for-stellar-achievement-get-it/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/pm-congratulates-chris-hadfield-for-stellar-achievement-get-it/#commentsWed, 13 Mar 2013 16:03:27 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=359796Here’s what Prime Minister Stephen Harper had to say as Chris Hadfield takes command of the International Space Station today:
“Ever since this country was founded, Canadians have been pushing …

Here’s what Prime Minister Stephen Harper had to say as Chris Hadfield takes command of the International Space Station today:

“Ever since this country was founded, Canadians have been pushing the boundaries of exploration and discovery, contributing in substantial ways to collective global knowledge.

“Today, on behalf of all my fellow citizens, I would like to congratulate our very own space pioneer, Chris Hadfield, who is continuing in that fine tradition of pushing the limits by being named the first Canadian to take command of the International Space Station, currently orbiting the planet.

“His pursuit of excellence in his field and his achievements in space are a tremendous source of national pride and can most aptly be described as stellar.

“Today we join the chorus of national and international recognition for this achievement – including best wishes from Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II – and we wish Commander Hadfield and his crew godspeed and safe return on their remarkable mission and adventure in space.”

And here’s a message from the Queen:

“I am pleased to transmit my personal best wishes, and those of all Canadians, to Colonel Christopher Hadfield as he takes command of the International Space Station on Wednesday. Our thoughts and best wishes are with him and the entire crew, as are our prayers for an eventual safe return to family, friends and fellow Canadians.”

The prepared text of Thomas Mulcair’s speech this morning to the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC.

Thank you for that introduction, David.

It’s an honour to be here with you today to discuss how our two countries can work together to build a balanced, sustainable North American economy in the 21st century.

There could be no better—or more timely—venue for this discussion than the Woodrow Wilson Center.

As you know, this month marks the 100th anniversary of Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration as president.

Everyone remembers Woodrow Wilson’s role in creating the League of Nations.

But this week also marks the 100th anniversary of his second-best known creation: the presidential press conference.

Before Wilson, journalists had never been allowed to grill such a powerful political figure in such a structured, sustained and public manner.

Elected officials, such as myself, have been taking Woodrow Wilson’s name in vain ever since.

Just imagine what we’d be facing if someone had told that man about Twitter.

In all seriousness, while the members of the media who are here with us today may see Wilson’s commitment to open government as his most lasting legacy, the fact is that for the last hundred years, Woodrow Wilson’s ideas have shaped the world’s approach to foreign policy in even more profound ways.

Wilson challenged the idea that a country’s foreign policy should be based solely on the pursuit of its immediate self-interest.

He believed that governments should project their nation’s values onto the world stage.

These approaches have long been respectively labeled as the “realist” and “idealist” schools of foreign policy.

But those terms are starting to show their age.

Today, on the world stage, our most fundamental values intersect with our most fundamental interests.

Peace and security.

Prosperity and social justice.

Democracy and good governance.

These values have served as the foundation of the strength of the democratic world.

These values guide us even now.

A hundred years ago, Wilson began to grapple with the growing interconnectedness of a new century.

Today, we face a world more interconnected than ever.

Economic boundaries have been all but erased.

Information, along with money and resources, can cross borders without barriers.

Threats that once seemed distant are now all too close to home.

A hundred years ago, Wilson believed governments should aim to project their nation’s values on the world stage.

Today, governments across the globe are realizing they have no other choice.

In the 21st century, an idealistic foreign policy is a realistic foreign policy—principle has become pragmatic.

Nowhere has this connection between our values and our interests become more clear than in the fight to combat global climate change.

Canadians are keenly aware of the threat global warming poses, not only to our environment, but to our economy as well.

The development of Canada’s natural resources has become a matter of fierce debate—within our own borders and beyond.

The sustainability of our industries is already having a direct impact on their development.

Projects that fail to uphold basic principles like polluter pay are being met with increasing hostility on all fronts.

The European Union is considering action of its own to address the carbon intensity of fossil fuels—the European Fuel Quality Directive.

New Democrats believe that Canada’s natural resources are a tremendous blessing.

They can be a source of wealth and prosperity for our country for generations to come.

But the future of Canada’s natural resource sector will be based on our access to global markets and Canada’s access to global markets will be based, in turn, not only the demand for our resources, but on the world’s assessment of how we develop them.

The question that faces us now is whether that development will be sustainable development.

I believe that, in the next century, that question will shape the world community’s global trade relationships more than any other.

Will using the air, the soil and the water as an unlimited free dumping ground be considered acceptable business practice or an unfair trade advantage.

In the global, 21st century economy, there can be simply no excuse for failing to internalize environmental costs.

And those who fail to recognize that reality will fail to thrive.

In Canada, it was the New Democratic Party that first raised the issue of climate change in the House of Commons in 1983.

As Minister of Environment and Sustainable Development in Quebec, I introduced North America’s first comprehensive sustainable development law.

I amended our province’s Charter of Rights to include the right to live in a healthy and bio-diverse environment.

My predecessor as Leader of the New Democratic Party, Jack Layton, pushed legislation through the House of Commons to mandate binding carbon emissions targets—a cap and trade plan—across all Canadian industries.

In an unprecedented move for an initiative of such importance, this bill was killed in Canada’s unelected Senate, much in the same way that ground-breaking climate change legislation was killed in your Senate a few years ago.

Though the end result may be the same, at least you can take solace in the fact that your Senate is elected.

Ours acted without even a mandate from voters.

Last month, President Obama spoke eloquently in his State of the Union address about the need take real action in the fight against climate change—for our children and for our future.

Contrast that with the fact that our government is the only government in the world to have withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol.

But what I can say to the millions of Americans who are committed to the fight against climate change is that there are millions of Canadians who stand with you.

In Canada, leaders of all political parties acknowledge that climate change is real and must be addressed.

The Canadian public supports basic principles like polluter pay at near universal levels.

Even industry leaders realize that they can no longer ignore these principles and still hope to profit.

Forward-thinking business leaders know that their industries can only flourish when they have, not only a regulatory licence, but a social license as well.

That means adhering to the basic rules of sustainable development.

It means full and public consultations with communities impacted by natural resource development.

And it means working in partnership with Canada’s First Nations to ensure our resources are developed responsibly.

It’s difficult to perceive Canadian resource development as a sustainable endeavour when our government guts the very environmental assessments Canada relied on to ensure a basic level of sustainability.

To an unthinking investor, this sort of regulatory blank check may seem like a windfall.

But it is, in fact, a poisoned chalice.

In the wake of President Obama’s State of the Union, your Ambassador to Ottawa David Jacobson gave Canadians his own frank assessment.

He said that American acceptance of projects like Keystone-XL would only be moved by progress addressing the impact that development will have on issues like climate change.

That’s a warning we’ve have taken to heart.

When it comes to our natural resource sector, our principles are pragmatic.

And this lesson applies not only to the sustainability of our resources themselves, but to the investment policies that will guide their development as well.

In the past two years alone, state-owned Chinese companies like PetroChina and CNOOC—the Chinese National Offshore Oil Company—have invested more than $25-billion in the Canadian oil and gas sector.

In fact, according to the Conference Board in Canada—by 2020—China will be Canada’s second largest investor largely in oil and gas.

This presents an incredible opportunity—and a significant challenge—for both Canada and the United States alike.

CNOOC’s recent $15 billion takeover of the Canadian energy company Nexen paralleled a nearly identical takeover bid for an American oil and gas producer, Unocal, that was rejected by the United States in 2005.

China has made it abundantly clear that it is adamant about expanding its access to the North American energy market.

Of course, if done well, foreign direct investment from countries like China can be an enormous benefit to our energy sector. But managing that investment will require a coherent vision—one that encourages certainty for investors while protecting our national interests as well.

From the environmental, to the social, to the economic.

Canadian law requires that all foreign takeovers above a certain threshold meet a “net benefit” test to protect Canadian interests.

The trouble is, no one is quite sure exactly what “net benefit” means, and the terms and conditions that accompany foreign takeovers are often kept secret.

In 2010, an NDP motion unanimously passed the House of Commons called for a clear definition of net benefit.

One that would provide clarity to both Canadians and potential investors.

Yet after two years, our current government still has not respected the will of Parliament.

Concerns over foreign investment in Canada have only grown since our current government signed the new Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement—an agreement known by its shorthand, FIPA.

This is an agreement negotiated by the federal government in total secrecy—without any consultation or debate in Parliament.

It is intended to bind the hands of Canadian governments for a full 31 years.

This is an affront to one of the basic tenets of the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy: that one parliament cannot bind the hands of another.

Under Article 6 of FIPA, once a Chinese company is established in Canada, it must receive “national treatment” for expansion and operations—meaning it must be treated as if it were any other Canadian company.

This vital clause gives CNOOC powerful rights to expand its ownership in Canada’s oil and gas sector—and buy up as many new oil leases as it likes—as any Canadian company would.

The treaty goes even further by providing China with a mechanism to sue our federal government if a Chinese company’s right to expand its ownership of Canadian natural resources is blocked or impeded.

Under the terms of FIPA, these lawsuits would be launched in secret—in front of a binding international tribunal—and outside of the rule of Canadian law.

Taken together, FIPA and CNOOC’s takeover of Nexen effectively limit the ability of Canadian governments to independently control our own natural resource policy, while ceding enormous control over our resources to a foreign power.

Canada is no stranger to dealing with the challenges that arise when navigating a complex relationship with a major global power.

But for decades, Canada and the United States have enjoyed a close economic relationship that—while not always perfect—has overwhelmingly served the interests of both sides.

Despite our differences that arise from time to time, Canada and United States are both societies based on the rule law.

We both enjoy modern, dynamic economies.

We both respect fundamental labour, environmental and human rights.

These shared values are the strength upon which our economic relationship has been built.

When it comes to our economic partnership, those shared principles have served pragmatic ends.

And never has principled economic leadership been so needed on the world stage.

President Wilson himself once observed, and I quote, “You cannot be a statesman and not a banker.”

That sentiment is even more true today than it was a century ago.

In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama renewed his call for the elimination of corporate tax loopholes that allow the richest few to get out of paying their fair share.

In Canada, New Democrats are pressuring our Conservative government to do the same.

A February report by the OECD found that aggressive tax planning by multinational corporations is not only eroding the tax base of many countries, it’s threatening the integrity of the entire international tax system.

The British Tax Justice Network says international tax havens are costing countries tens of trillions of dollars worldwide, and leaving small and medium-sized businesses to pick up the slack.

When a dishonest few are allowed to game the system—leaving middle class families and small businesses to foot the bill—it’s up to the government to act.

And a New Democratic government would do just that—working aggressively with our G20 partners to make sure that everyone plays by the same rules.

Since 2008, political and economic watchers the world over have come to learn about the stability and strength of the Canadian banking system.

What is far less understood is that the strength of Canada’s financial system is built as much on our values as it is on our expertise.

Canada was not immune to the siren call of financial deregulation that swept across the rest of the developed world just over a decade ago.

In the 1990’s, Canada’s Liberal and Conservative parties alike joined the chorus.

It was only New Democrats who held the anchor tight against the calls for radical deregulation.

It provides significant incentives to attract the best and the brightest of our society to it as a profession.

But what our system does not allow is for the narrow self-interest of a few to trump the larger interests of all Canadians.

It does not sacrifice stability for the sake of promoting voracity.

Now, five years separated from the global economic crisis of 2008, Canadians are once again bracing for economic threats from abroad.

The threat of financial instability in Europe.

The threat of political gridlock right here in Washington.

The effect of U.S. sequestration cuts that have recently come into effect, combined with an end of various Bush and Obama tax breaks two months earlier, are already affecting the American economy—and Canada’s as well.

Consider the effect that cuts to border services are having on your economy in the North-East and Mid-West.

Now imagine if, instead of your exports across that border constituting 4% of your Gross Domestic Product, they comprised 23% of your Gross Domestic Product, as they do in Canada.

You can understand our concern.

The United States faces a serious long-term budget challenge. That cannot be denied.

But the arbitrary austerity of sequestration is not a solution to that challenge or to any other.

Neither are the gridlock and brinksmanship that have gripped your Capitol.

At its heart, the pursuit of public life must be the pursuit of the public interest and of good government.

Our country—much like yours—faces record levels of voter disengagement and frustration.

All across Canada, I meet people who are committed to their communities, but turned off by politics.

By the cynicism and the game playing.

By the antics they’ve seen in parliament.

And to be blunt, it’s difficult to blame them.

But in our 2011 federal election, something special happened.

From coast-to-coast-to-coast, Canadians began to rediscover their voice in our democracy.

They didn’t just embrace the positive and optimistic vision put forth by the New Democratic Party, they saw themselves as part of it.

Nowhere was this more true than in my home province of Quebec, where millions of voters made history by delivering a resounding “no” to the politics of division that had weighed us down for so long.

If mature, democratic countries such as ours cannot resolve the differences that confront us, then what hope can other nations hold for resolving struggles of their own?

Here too, principled leadership on the world stage has never been more needed.

Even as we in North America struggle with the fallout of the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression, the rest of the world has not stopped rotating on its axis.

Whether it’s activists fighting for the rule of law and respect for human rights in China,

Or young people demanding accountability from their governments in Eastern Europe,

Or an entire generation awakening in the Middle East,

The struggle continues against challenges far greater than what we face here at home.

The actions of great countries such as ours will shape the next century just as they did the last.

Will we act out of fear or mistrust, and risk deepening division?

Will we sit idly by, and allow emerging democracies to flounder?

Will we shrink from the challenges that stand before us, or will we rise to the occasion?

As President Wilson understood, we cannot separate our most fundamental interests from our most deeply held beliefs. Democracy, human rights and social justice are not the luxuries of the powerful; they are the values upon which our power is built.

In the last century, our two countries served as a model of partnership and progress for a waiting world.

We built that partnership on the strength of these values.

In the 21st century, as we prepare ourselves for an increasingly complex set of challenges.

Let’s re-commit to those same values, and to those who share them.

When we look out onto a horizon filled with uncertainty, it is those most familiar and most ardent principles that will give us strength.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/thomas-mulcair-channels-woodrow-wilson/feed/2New York Times urges Obama to say no to Keystone XLhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/new-york-times-urges-obama-to-say-no-to-keystone-xl/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/new-york-times-urges-obama-to-say-no-to-keystone-xl/#commentsMon, 11 Mar 2013 11:36:21 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=358963In an editorial in the New York Times today, U.S. President Barack Obama is urged not to approve the Keystone XL pipeline:
“A president who has repeatedly identified climate change …

“A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem.”

The paper advises the president to focus on the long-term consequences of the pipeline:

“Mainstream scientists are virtually unanimous in stating that the one sure way to avert the worst consequences of climate change is to decarbonize the world economy by finding cleaner sources of energy while leaving more fossil fuels in the ground. Given its carbon content, tar sands oil should be among the first fossil fuels we decide to leave alone.”

The Times editorial suggests saying no to Keystone would force Canada to a larger role in deciding whether or not it is wise to expand the tar sands:

”Saying no to the pipeline will not stop Canada from developing the tar sands, but it will force the construction of new pipelines through Canada itself. And that will require Canadians to play a larger role in deciding whether a massive expansion of tar sands development is prudent.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/new-york-times-urges-obama-to-say-no-to-keystone-xl/feed/3The best of Barack Obama’s jokes from the Gridiron Dinnerhttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-best-of-barack-obamas-jokes-from-the-gridiron-dinner/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-best-of-barack-obamas-jokes-from-the-gridiron-dinner/#commentsSun, 10 Mar 2013 12:17:01 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=358874Is it too early to joke about sequester?

Barack Obama cracked wise in front of an audience of journalists at the Gridiron Dinner in Washington, DC last evening. Here are some highlight’s from the U.S. president’s speech, which was made available by the White House after the event:

On Sequester:

“Before I begin, I know some of you have noticed that I’m dressed a little differently from the other gentlemen. Because of sequester, they cut my tails. My joke writers have been placed on furlough.”

On replacing Hillary Clinton:

“Let’s face it — Hillary is a tough act to follow. But John Kerry is doing great so far. He is doing everything he can to ensure continuity. Frankly, though, I think it’s time for him to stop showing up at work in pantsuits. It’s a disturbing image. It really is. I don’t know where he buys them. He is a tall guy.”

Bob Woodward:

“We noticed that some folks couldn’t make it this evening. It’s been noted that Bob Woodward sends his regrets, which Gene Sperling predicted. I have to admit this whole brouhaha had me a little surprised. Who knew Gene could be so intimidating? Or let me phrase it differently — who knew anybody named Gene could be this intimidating? Now I know that some folks think we responded to Woodward too aggressively. But hey, when has — can anybody tell me when an administration has ever regretted picking a fight with Bob Woodward? What’s the worst that could happen?”

On control of the press corp:

“Now, since I don’t often speak to a room full of journalists — I thought I should address a few concerns tonight. Some of you have said that I’m ignoring the Washington press corps — that we’re too controlling. You know what, you were right. I was wrong and I want to apologize in a video you can watch exclusively at whitehouse.gov. “

Nate Silver:

“Now I’m sure that you’ve noticed that there’s somebody very special in my life who is missing tonight, somebody who has always got my back, stands with me no matter what and gives me hope no matter how dark things seem. So tonight, I want to publicly thank my rock, my foundation — thank you, Nate Silver. “

Top priorities:

“We face major challenges. March in particular is going to be full of tough decisions. But I want to assure you, I have my top advisors working around the clock. After all, my March Madness bracket isn’t going to fill itself out. And don’t worry — there is an entire team in the situation room as we speak, planning my next golf outing, right now at this moment.”

On the difference between Star Trek and Star Wars:

“Spock is what Maureen Dowd calls me. Darth Vader is what John Boehner calls me.”

Religion:

“Of course, maintaining credibility in this cynical atmosphere is harder than ever — incredibly challenging. My administration recently put out a photo of me skeet shooting and even that wasn’t enough for some people. Next week, we’re releasing a photo of me clinging to religion.”

On journalism in tough times:

“I know that there are people who get frustrated with the way journalism is practiced these days. And sometimes those people are me. But the truth is our country needs you and our democracy needs you.

“In an age when all it takes to attract attention is a Twitter handle and some followers, it’s easier than ever to get it wrong. But it’s more important than ever to get it right. And I am grateful for all the journalists who do one of the toughest jobs there is with integrity and insight and dedication — and a sense of purpose — that goes beyond a business model or a news cycle.

“This year alone, reporters have exposed corruption here at home and around the world. They’ve risked everything to bring us stories from places like Syria and Kenya, stories that need to be told. And they’ve helped people understand the ways in which we’re all connected — how something that happens or doesn’t happen halfway around the world or here in Washington can have consequences for American families.

“These are extraordinary times. The stakes are high and the tensions can sometimes be high as well. But while we’ll always have disagreements, I believe that we share the belief that a free press — a press that questions us, that holds us accountable, that sometimes gets under our skin — is absolutely an essential part of our democracy.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/the-best-of-barack-obamas-jokes-from-the-gridiron-dinner/feed/1Here’s what happened when the PM asked for help from the Twitterversehttp://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/heres-what-happened-when-the-pm-asked-for-help-from-the-twitterverse/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/heres-what-happened-when-the-pm-asked-for-help-from-the-twitterverse/#commentsThu, 07 Mar 2013 22:42:49 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=358247Question for Chris Hadfield? Stephen Harper wants to know

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/heres-what-happened-when-the-pm-asked-for-help-from-the-twitterverse/feed/5‘Stay tuned. Very soon,’ Flaherty says when asked for a budget datehttp://www.macleans.ca/general/stay-tuned-very-soon-flaherty-says-when-asked-for-a-budget-date/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/stay-tuned-very-soon-flaherty-says-when-asked-for-a-budget-date/#commentsThu, 07 Mar 2013 21:56:54 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=358216Here’s Finance Minister Jim Flaherty outside the House today when asked to name a date for the 2013 budget:
When can we expect a date for the budget? Sorry (inaudible) …

To read the U.S. State Department environmental impact statement on Keystone XL click here.

[&lt;a href="//storify.com/MacleansMag/keystone-reaction" target="_blank"&gt;View the story "The U.S. state department on Keystone XL" on Storify&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;br /&gt; &lt;h1&gt;The U.S. state department on Keystone XL&lt;/h1&gt; &lt;h2&gt;Luiza Ch. Savage and Paul Wells provide highlights of a call with the U.S. department on Keystone. &lt;/h2&gt; &lt;p&gt;Storified by &lt;a href=”http://storify.com/MacleansMag”&gt;Maclean’s Magazine&lt;/a&gt;&amp;middot; Fri, Mar 01 2013 13:08:25 &lt;/p&gt; &lt;div&gt;The State Department’s report on Keystone is here: http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/01/keystone-xl-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement-is-out/aaronwherry&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;State Dept official: There will be another public meeting in Nebraska on new route of #KeystoneXL #oilsandsLuiza Ch. Savage&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;State Dept: Approval or denial of any one transport project really remains unlikey to significantly impact development of oil sands #KXLLuiza Ch. Savage&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;State Dep. official sounds defensive re conclusion that #KeystoneXL won’t influence development of oilsands: &amp;quot;anxious for public comment&amp;quot;Luiza Ch. Savage&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;State Dept: In some cases the oil is replacing oil already in US system from other sources so qn is how much difference does it make?Luiza Ch. Savage&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;State department briefing suggests the &amp;quot;no action alternative&amp;quot; section of this report would bear close reading. #KeystonePaul Wells&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;Delighted to report that questions are not better on a State Department conference call than on an Ottawa conference call.Paul Wells&lt;/div&gt; &lt;div&gt;State Dept. official: Draft enviro statement &amp;quot; has no recommendations one way or the other&amp;quot; on #keystonexlLuiza Ch. Savage&lt;/div&gt; &lt;p&gt;

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/authors/luiza-ch-savage/keystone-xl-supplemental-environmental-impact-statement-is-out/feed/0Transcript: Mark Carney’s speech on rebuilding trust in global bankinghttp://www.macleans.ca/general/transcript-mark-carneys-speech-on-rebuilding-trust-in-global-banking/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/transcript-mark-carneys-speech-on-rebuilding-trust-in-global-banking/#commentsMon, 25 Feb 2013 18:14:48 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=353957A transcript of Mark Carney’s prepared remarks to the 7th Annual Thomas d’Aquino Lecture on Leadership at the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario:…
Six

A transcript of Mark Carney’s prepared remarks to the 7th Annual Thomas d’Aquino Lecture on Leadership at the Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario:

Six years ago, the collapse of the global financial system triggered the worst global recession since the Great Depression.

Losing savings, jobs, and houses has been devastating for many. Something else was lost – trust in major banking systems. This deepened the cost of the crisis and is restraining the pace of the recovery.

The real economy relies on the financial system. And the financial system depends on trust. Indeed, trust is imbedded in the language of finance. The word credit is derived from the Latin, credere, which means “to have trust in.” Too few banks outside of Canada can claim credit today.

Bonds of trust between banks and their depositors, clients, investors and regulators have been shaken by the mismanagement of banks and, on occasion, the malfeasance of their employees.

Over the past year, the questions of competence have been supplanted by questions of conduct. Several major foreign banks and their employees have been charged with criminal activity, including the manipulation of financial benchmarks, such as LIBOR, money laundering, unlawful foreclosure and the unauthorized use of client funds. These abuses have raised fundamental doubts about the core values of financial institutions.

In my remarks today, I will discuss the breakdown of trust and what is required to rebuild it. The G-20’s comprehensive financial reforms will go a long way but will not be sufficient.

Virtue cannot be regulated. Even the strongest supervision cannot guarantee good conduct. Essential will be the re-discovery of core values, and ultimately this is a question of individual responsibility. More than mastering options pricing, company valuation or accounting, living the right values will be the most important challenge for the more than one-third of Ivey students who go into finance every year.

Trust is strained at multiple levels

Between banks and their shareholders: Most major banks outside Canada are now trading well below their book value, indicating shareholder concerns about a combination of the quality of bank assets and the value of their franchises

Between banks and their debt-holders: Bank credit ratings have been downgraded, and even the revised ratings reflect continued reliance on sovereign backstops.

Between banks and their supervisors: For too many institutions, concerns over competence, conduct and, ultimately, culture have fed supervisory concerns and built the political case for structural measures, such as ring fencing, or prohibiting certain activities, such as proprietary trading.

Between supervisors in advanced economies: Fearful that support from parent banks cannot be counted upon in times of global stress, some supervisors are moving to ensure that subsidiaries in their jurisdictions are resilient on a stand-alone basis. Measures to ring fence the capital and liquidity of local entities are being proposed. Left unchecked, these trends could substantially decrease the efficiency of the global financial system. In addition, a more balkanized system that concentrates risk within national borders would reduce systemic resilience globally.

Between emerging and advanced economies: Given that the crisis originated in the advanced economies, the incentives for emerging and developing economies to ring fence their financial systems are particularly pronounced. This has been, at times, supplemented by more active management of capital inflows, further fragmenting the global system.

Finally, and most fundamentally, there has been a significant loss of trust by the general public in the financial system. There is a growing suspicion of the benefits of financial deregulation and cross-border financial liberalisation, a suspicion that could ultimately undermine support for free trade and open markets more generally.

The costs are potentially enormous

A global system that is nationally fragmented will lead to less efficient intermediation of savings and a deep misallocation of capital. It could reverse the process of global economic integration that has supported growth and widespread poverty reduction over the last two decades.

Within economies, the hesitancy of firms to invest reflects in part low confidence that their banks will be there to provide credit through the cycle.

Reduced trust in the financial system has increased the cost and lowered the availability of capital for non-financial firms. The massive response of central banks has provided some offset but access to credit remains strained.

Consider fractional reserve banking, which allows banks to transform savings into investments, driving growth and wealth creation. At its core, such banking relies on the trust of depositors, bonds of trust that are so vital they have been reinforced by the state through deposit insurance and supervisory oversight.

In turn, the trust between financial counterparties multiplies base money created by the central bank many times, creating an aggregate credit supply that finances our modern economy.

When trust in the system is lost, this process reverses. Depositors and investors become reluctant to provide funding to banks, banks to lend to other banks, and, in some of the most affected countries, both are sceptical of the ability of governments to backstop the system.

Since the crisis, money multipliers have plummeted in the crisis economies. In the United States and European Union, the ratio of M2/M0 fell by 55 and 40 per cent, respectively, between 2006 and 2012. While some of the decline reflects the end of excess and the weakness of credit demand in a deleveraging economy, the magnitude of the decline indicates the extent to which trust has been shaken. In contrast, in Canada, where trust in the system has, if anything, increased, the ratio has risen by 22 per cent.

Rebuilding trust: The Five Cs

So what to do? A combination of institutional and individual initiatives – the “Five Cs” – is required.

The G-20’s comprehensive financial reforms will go a long way to rebuild trust. The good news is that there has been progress, even if it is not yet fully reflected in market valuations or public attitudes.

Capital

Many people remember the pivotal moment when Lehman Brothers collapsed, but that was only one example of a widespread failure of banking models across the advanced economies.

That same year, major banks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Ireland, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium either failed or were rescued by the state. Gallingly, on the eve of their collapse, every bank boasted of capital levels well in excess of the standards of the time.

So it should be no surprise when building a more resilient system, the first priority was to strengthen the bank capital regime. Through higher minimums, surcharges for systemically important banks, countercyclical buffers and tougher definitions of capital, the largest banks will have to hold at least seven times as much capital as before the crisis.

As a backstop to the risk-based capital framework, a simple, but effective leverage ratio has been imported from Canada. It protects the system from risks we might think are low but in fact are not.

Since the end of 2007, major banks in the United States and Europe have increased their common equity capital by $575 billion and their common equity capital ratios by 25 per cent.

Canadian banks are setting the pace. Since withstanding the financial crisis, they have become considerably stronger. Their common equity capital has increased by 77 per cent, or $72 billion, and they already meet the new Basel III capital requirements six full years ahead of schedule.

Clarity

Greater clarity, the second ‘C,’ is critical to well-functioning capital markets.

In the run-up to the crisis, financial institutions became increasingly opaque. Their balance sheets were stuffed with mark-to-model assets, massive undisclosed contingent exposures, and debt classified as regulatory capital. Annual reports ran over 400 pages in some cases, leaving investors exhausted but no better informed.

In the past few years, there have been some improvements, including better accounting for off-balance-sheet securitisations, and enhanced disclosures of credit risk and the transfers of financial assets.

Encouraged by the G-20, U.S. and international accounting standard-setters have made progress toward a single set of high-quality reporting standards, particularly in the areas of revenue recognition and asset valuation.

But more is required. The two boards have not yet been able to agree on a common approach for asset impairment based on expected, rather than incurred, losses. The G-20 has now called on them to redouble their efforts.

One of the most important initiatives to improve clarity is the work of a private sector group, the Enhanced Disclosure Task Force (EDTF), which was formed at the encouragement of the Financial Stability Board (FSB).3 It has made a series of recommendations to improve annual financial reporting by banks based on seven principles. Disclosures should be clear, comprehensive, relevant, consistent, comparable, and timely. Finally, annual reports should explain how risk is actually managed.

The Bank of Canada joins the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in encouraging major Canadian banks to implement the EDTF standards as soon as is possible.

Better disclosure of a bank’s current financial condition can be usefully supplemented by regular assessments of the impact of stress on it. Stress tests can expose excessive mismatches in maturities and currencies, find evidence of undue forbearance in lending and reveal excess or correlated asset concentrations. In the current environment, the FSB has emphasised particularly the value of stressing against sharp movements in yield curves.

Capitalism

Perhaps the most fatal blow to public trust has been the perception of a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose finance. Bankers made enormous sums in the run-up to the crisis and were often well compensated after it hit. In turn, taxpayers picked up the tab for their failures. Thus, at the heart of financial reform must be measures that restore capitalism to the capitalists.

To that end, the FSB is enhancing the role of the market. The measures to improve clarity will enhance market discipline.

The development of effective resolution tools will also help diminish the moral hazard associated with “too big to fail.” The FSB has identified those banks that are systemically important at the global level and developed a range of measures that, once implemented, will help to ensure that any financial institution can be resolved without severe disruption to the financial system and without exposing the taxpayer to the risk of loss.

The knowledge that this could happen should enhance market discipline of private creditors who previously enjoyed a free ride at the expense of taxpayers.

While solid progress has been made it is not yet mission accomplished. In the coming months, jurisdictions need to articulate comprehensive plans to resolve each systemic institution. These should include effective cross-border agreements for handling a failure and, a minimum amount of bail-inable liabilities and the publication of a presumptive path for resolution.

To take stock, the FSB will report to the G-20 leaders at the St. Petersburg Summit on the extent to which “too big to fail” has been ended and, if not, what further steps are required.

Connecting with clients

Financial capitalism is not an end in itself, but a means to promote investment, innovation, growth and prosperity. Banking is fundamentally about intermediation – connecting borrowers and savers in the real economy. Yet, too many in finance saw it as the apex of economic activity.

In the run-up to the crisis, banking became more about banks connecting with other banks. Clients were replaced by counterparties, and banking was increasingly transactional rather than relational.

These attitudes developed over years as new markets and instruments were created. The initial motivation was to meet the credit and hedging needs of clients in support of their business activities. However, over time, many of these innovations morphed into ways to amplify bets on financial outcomes.

An important example of a useful, but eventually misused, innovation is securitisation, which initially provided funding diversification for banks while spreading risk among investors with different load-bearing capacities.

However, in the run-up to the crisis, highly complex chains developed, linking low-risk money market funds with high-risk subprime mortgages via off-balance-sheet structured investment vehicles (SIVs). Banks sold mortgages into the SIVs and many of the SIVs in turn wrote credit insurance contracts, often to the very banks that sponsored them, to “insure” the bank’s proprietary credit positions.

These links with banks were simultaneously too weak and too strong. The shift of credit exposure from originating bank to the SIV eroded underwriting and monitoring standards.

In addition, the transfer of risk itself was frequently incomplete, with banks retaining large quantities of supposedly risk-free senior tranches of structured products. Moreover, the insurance provided by the SIV was only as good as the quality of the mortgages bought by the bank. These dynamics were at the heart of the Canadian non-bank asset-backed commercial paper fiasco.

Similarly, the rapid expansion of banks into over-the-counter derivatives was initially motivated by the desire to provide hedges to their clients as end-users. These transactions eventually morphed into a mountain of intra-financial system claims, largely divorced from end-users, with banks and other financial entities trading among themselves.

The magnitude of these developments was remarkable. In the final years of the boom, the scale of shadow-banking activity exploded. The value of structured investment vehicles, for example, almost tripled in the three years to 2007. Credit default swaps grew sixfold over the same period.

As intra-financial sector claims grew, banks became increasingly detached from their ultimate clients in the real economy. In most professions, people see the ‘real’ impact of their work: teachers witness the growth of their students, farmers that of their crops. When bankers become disconnected from their ultimate clients in the real economy, they have no direct view of the impact of their work. The LIBOR-setter sees only the numbers on the screen as a game to be won, ignoring the consequences of his or her actions on mortgage-holders or corporate borrowers.

Fortunately, there are some signs that global banks are returning to their roots. Complex securitisation chains have dissolved. Mechanistic reliance on credit ratings is declining. With higher capital requirements on trading activities (and the prospect of structural restrictions), traditional lending is looking more attractive. These shifts will promote diverse private sector judgments, reduce cliff effects and build resilience, and possibly over time, a measure of trust.

But there arguably has not yet been a full recognition of the need for banks to return to what Ed Clark calls “old fashioned banking – activities that help grow their country and communities.” To do this, some banks may need to reconsider their values.

Core values

The fifth ‘C’ – core values – is the responsibility of the financial sector and its leaders. Their behaviour during the crisis demonstrated that many were not being guided by sound core values.

Many in the wake of the crisis looked first to how compensation affects behaviour. Indeed, an important lesson was that compensation schemes that delivered large bonuses for short-term returns encouraged individuals to take on too much long-term and tail risk. In short, the present was overvalued and the future heavily discounted.

To better align incentives with long-term interests of the firm and, more broadly, society, the FSB developed Principles and Standards for Sound Compensation Practices. Core elements include deferred variable performance payments, paying bonuses in stock rather than cash, and introducing bonus clawbacks.

Of course, no compensation package can fully align the incentives of a bank’s shareholders and its risk-takers. Even if such a package could be devised it would not internalise the impact of individual actions on systemic risks, including on trust in the banking system.

More fundamentally, to think that compensation arrangements can ensure virtue is to miss the point entirely. Integrity cannot be legislated, and it certainly cannot be bought. It must come from within.

Purely financial compensation ignores the non-pecuniary rewards to employment, such as the satisfaction received from helping a client or colleague succeed. When bankers become detached from end-users, their only reward is money, which is generally insufficient to guide socially useful behaviour.

Few regulators and virtually no bankers saw these limitations. Beliefs in efficient, self-equilibrating markets fed a reliance on market incentives that entered the realm of faith. As Michael Sandel has observed, we moved from a market economy towards a market society.

This reductionist view of the human condition is a poor foundation for ethical financial institutions needed to support long-term prosperity.

To help rebuild that foundation, bankers, like all of us, need to avoid compartmentalisation or what the former Chair of HSBC, Stephen Green, calls “the besetting sin of human beings.” When we compartmentalise, we divide our life into different realms, each with its own set of rules. Home is distinct from work; ethics from law.

In the extreme, as Ed Clark observed, “Bank leaders created cultures around a simple principle: if it’s legal and others are doing it, we should do it too if it makes money. It didn’t matter if it was the right thing to do for the customer, community or country.”

To restore trust in banks and in the broader financial system, global financial institutions need to rediscover their values. This was the conclusion of research conducted here at Western.

For companies, this responsibility begins with their boards and senior management. They need to define clearly the purpose of their organisations and promote a culture of ethical business throughout them.

But a top-down approach is insufficient. Employees need a sense of broader purpose, grounded in strong connections to their clients and their communities. To move to a world that once again values the future, bankers need to see themselves as custodians of their institutions, improving them before passing them along to their successors.

Conclusion

It has been said that, “trust arrives on foot, but leaves in a Ferrari.” After the Ferrari screeched out of the parking lot in 2008, what steps have been taken to rebuild trust?

There has been progress. As the new Basel capital rules are implemented, and the reliance on ratings agencies diminishes, market infrastructure improves; and as banks – and, crucially, their investors – develop a better appreciation of their prospects for risk and return, business models are beginning to change.

Already, a couple of banks have fallen off the list of globally systemic banks because they have simplified, downsized and de-risked their business models. Other institutions are de-emphasizing high-profile but risky capital markets businesses that benefited employees more than shareholders and society.

Global banks have made significant progress in reforming their compensation practices so that rewards more closely match risk profiles. In addition, boards of directors and risk committees are taking more responsibility to ensure that remuneration packages and employee behaviour are aligned with updated institutional cultures.

Unfortunately, a spate of conduct scandals ranging from rigging LIBOR to money laundering has overshadowed these steady and material improvements.

This underscores that it remains the collective responsibility of banks, regulators and other stakeholders to rebuild trust in banking. Banks need to participate actively in reform, not fight it. Until recently, too few bankers acknowledged their industry’s role in the fiasco. The time for remorse is far from over.

At the same time, the public sector needs to be more vocal and appreciative when the industry makes major contributions. This has been the case with the EDTF and in work on bail-in debt, a key element of ending “too big to fail.” In addition, the best global organisations are now recognising the need to address their corporate ethics. All of these efforts should be publicly encouraged and reinforced.

Ultimately, it will be down to individual bankers, including the Ivey grads who will go into finance. Which tradition will you uphold? Will your professional values be distinct from your personal ones? What will you leave those who come after you?

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/transcript-mark-carneys-speech-on-rebuilding-trust-in-global-banking/feed/1Transcript: Pope Benedict XVI’s declaration: ‘I thank you most sincerely’http://www.macleans.ca/general/transcript-pope-benedict-xvis-declaration-i-thank-you-most-sincerely/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/transcript-pope-benedict-xvis-declaration-i-thank-you-most-sincerely/#commentsMon, 11 Feb 2013 12:30:03 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=349039Pope Benedict XVI shocked the world this morning with news that he plans to resign at the end of the month. What follows is a transcript of his declaration:
From…

Pope Benedict XVI shocked the world this morning with news that he plans to resign at the end of the month. What follows is a transcript of his declaration:

From the Vatican, 10 February 2013

Dear Brothers,

I have convoked you to this Consistory, not only for the three canonizations, but also to communicate to you a decision of great importance for the life of the Church. After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me. For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter, entrusted to me by the Cardinals on 19 April 2005, in such a way, that as from 28 February 2013, at 20:00 hours, the See of Rome, the See of Saint Peter, will be vacant and a Conclave to elect the new Supreme Pontiff will have to be convoked by those whose competence it is.

Dear Brothers, I thank you most sincerely for all the love and work with which you have supported me in my ministry and I ask pardon for all my defects. And now, let us entrust the Holy Church to the care of Our Supreme Pastor, Our Lord Jesus Christ, and implore his holy Mother Mary, so that she may assist the Cardinal Fathers with her maternal solicitude, in electing a new Supreme Pontiff. With regard to myself, I wish to also devotedly serve the Holy Church of God in the future through a life dedicated to prayer.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/transcript-pope-benedict-xvis-declaration-i-thank-you-most-sincerely/feed/1Senator Mike Duffy: ‘I would never do anything to betray the public trust’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/senator-mike-duffy-i-would-never-do-anything-to-betray-the-public-trust/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/senator-mike-duffy-i-would-never-do-anything-to-betray-the-public-trust/#commentsFri, 08 Feb 2013 15:04:18 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=348412Embattled Senator Mike Duffy — who represents Cavendish, PEI — has just released the following statement:
“As a Prince Edward Islander, born and bred, I am proud to represent my …

CBC columnist Rex Murphy had much to say about Senator Mike Duffy on the National Thursday night. Here’s just a sampling. Viewing notes: Watch Murphy’s hands around the 3:17 mark when he talks about boiling oil.

“Senator Mike Duffy is fleeing press curiosity by hiding out in the kitchens of some of the region’s better restaurants — a not unlikely refuge for the senator, when you think of it — pastry on demand, stacks of crème brûlée … you know, that sort of thing.

“… Wasn’t it Truman who declared, ‘If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?’ Mike (Where Does He Live?) Duffy has caught a hold of the wrong end of the frying pan on that one. He’s hiding out in a kitchen, which raises the question: Can a person on a small island be a good senator for that island if he has to leave hotels via the backstairs kitchens under covering fire from veteran Tory sous vide chefs?

“Well, since crawling into the Senate from one of the top rungs on the ladder journalism gave him to get there, Mr. Duffy wants the self-appointed pride of the fourth estate. Remember his unfair and merciless of the Stephané Dion interview stumbles? Mr. Duffy has kicked the ladder back down with a vengeance and threatened boiling oil on those who question his ascent.

” … Is PEI’s splendid representative in the chamber of second chances and lifetime freebies possibly, legally, a resident of cold Ontario? It’s like a mad version of Where’s Waldo: Where does the senator live? Or a math test: If Anne has seven gables, how many has Mike? Dear Lucy Maud would not be amused: A senator cowering in the kitchen, shunning his old friends for a pile of red cushions and a dubious fame. Would she put Senator Duffy in her novels? I doubt it. The real Anne would chase him out.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/rex-murphy-has-words-for-mike-where-does-he-live-duffy/feed/13Transcript: Mark Carney explains himself in 45-page ‘job application’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/transcript-mark-carneys-submission-to-the-treasury-select-committee/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/transcript-mark-carneys-submission-to-the-treasury-select-committee/#commentsThu, 07 Feb 2013 23:18:03 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=347667Question 1: How has your experience prepared you for role of Governor of the Bank of England?

Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney was interviewed by MPs on the Treasury Select Committee on Thursday morning. At the time of his appearance, the committee released Carney’s written replies to questions related to his role as governor of the Bank of England:

One sun rose on us today, kindled over our shores,
peeking over the Smokies, greeting the faces
of the Great Lakes, spreading a simple truth
across the Great Plains, then charging across the Rockies.
One light, waking up rooftops, under each one, a story
told by our silent gestures moving behind windows.

My face, your face, millions of faces in morning’s mirrors,
each one yawning to life, crescendoing into our day:
pencil-yellow school buses, the rhythm of traffic lights,
fruit stands: apples, limes, and oranges arrayed like rainbows
begging our praise. Silver trucks heavy with oil or paper—
bricks or milk, teeming over highways alongside us,
on our way to clean tables, read ledgers, or save lives—
to teach geometry, or ring-up groceries as my mother did
for twenty years, so I could write this poem.

All of us as vital as the one light we move through,
the same light on blackboards with lessons for the day:
equations to solve, history to question, or atoms imagined,
the “I have a dream” we keep dreaming,
or the impossible vocabulary of sorrow that won’t explain
the empty desks of twenty children marked absent
today, and forever. Many prayers, but one light
breathing color into stained glass windows,
life into the faces of bronze statues, warmth
onto the steps of our museums and park benches
as mothers watch children slide into the day.

One ground. Our ground, rooting us to every stalk
of corn, every head of wheat sown by sweat
and hands, hands gleaning coal or planting windmills
in deserts and hilltops that keep us warm, hands
digging trenches, routing pipes and cables, hands
as worn as my father’s cutting sugarcane
so my brother and I could have books and shoes.

The dust of farms and deserts, cities and plains
mingled by one wind—our breath. Breathe. Hear it
through the day’s gorgeous din of honking cabs,
buses launching down avenues, the symphony
of footsteps, guitars, and screeching subways,
the unexpected song bird on your clothes line.

Hear: squeaky playground swings, trains whistling,
or whispers across café tables, Hear: the doors we open
for each other all day, saying: hello, shalom,
buon giorno, howdy, namaste, or buenos días
in the language my mother taught me—in every language
spoken into one wind carrying our lives
without prejudice, as these words break from my lips.

One sky: since the Appalachians and Sierras claimed
their majesty, and the Mississippi and Colorado worked
their way to the sea. Thank the work of our hands:
weaving steel into bridges, finishing one more report
for the boss on time, stitching another wound
or uniform, the first brush stroke on a portrait,
or the last floor on the Freedom Tower
jutting into a sky that yields to our resilience.

One sky, toward which we sometimes lift our eyes
tired from work: some days guessing at the weather
of our lives, some days giving thanks for a love
that loves you back, sometimes praising a mother
who knew how to give, or forgiving a father
who couldn’t give what you wanted.

We head home: through the gloss of rain or weight
of snow, or the plum blush of dusk, but always—home,
always under one sky, our sky. And always one moon
like a silent drum tapping on every rooftop
and every window, of one country—all of us—
facing the stars
hope—a new constellation
waiting for us to map it,
waiting for us to name it—together

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/text-of-inaugural-poet-richard-blancos-poem-one-today/feed/0Transcript: What Barack Obama told the community of Newtownhttp://www.macleans.ca/general/transcript-what-barack-obama-told-the-community-of-newtown/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/transcript-what-barack-obama-told-the-community-of-newtown/#commentsMon, 17 Dec 2012 10:15:07 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=329302Here are the president’s speaking remarks:…
Thank you, Governor. To all the families, first responders, to the community of Newtown, clergy, guests, scripture tells us, “Do not lose heart. Though

Thank you, Governor. To all the families, first responders, to the community of Newtown, clergy, guests, scripture tells us, “Do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, inwardly, we are being renewed day by day.

“For light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all, so we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

“For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven not built by human hands.”

We gather here in memory of 20 beautiful children and six remarkable adults. They lost their lives in a school that could have been any school in a quiet town full of good and decent people that could be any town in America.

Here in Newtown, I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation. I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts.

I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief, that our world, too, has been torn apart, that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you. We’ve pulled our children tight.

And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide. Whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it. Newtown, you are not alone.

As these difficult days have unfolded, you’ve also inspired us with stories of strength and resolve and sacrifice. We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school’s staff did not flinch. They did not hesitate.

Dawn Hocksprung and Mary Sherlach, Vicki Soto, Lauren Russeau, Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy, they responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances, with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.

We know that there were other teachers who barricaded themselves inside classrooms and kept steady through it all and reassured their students by saying, “Wait for the good guys, they are coming. Show me your smile.”

And we know that good guys came, the first responders who raced to the scene helping to guide those in harm’s way to safety and comfort those in need, holding at bay their own shock and their own trauma, because they had a job to do and others needed them more.

And then there were the scenes of the schoolchildren helping one another, holding each other, dutifully following instructions in the way that young children sometimes do, one child even trying to encourage a grownup by saying, “I know karate, so it’s OK; I’ll lead the way out.”

As a community, you’ve inspired us, Newtown. In the face of indescribable violence, in the face of unconscionable evil, you’ve looked out for each other. You’ve cared for one another. And you’ve loved one another. This is how Newtown will be remembered, and with time and God’s grace, that love will see you through.

But we as a nation, we are left with some hard questions. You know, someone once described the joy and anxiety of parenthood as the equivalent of having your heart outside of your body all the time, walking around.

With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves, our child, is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice, and every parent knows there’s nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. And yet we also know that with that child’s very first step and each step after that, they are separating from us, that we won’t — that we can’t always be there for them.

They will suffer sickness and setbacks and broken hearts and disappointments, and we learn that our most important job is to give them what they need to become self-reliant and capable and resilient, ready to face the world without fear. And we know we can’t do this by ourselves.

It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself, that this job of keeping our children safe and teaching them well is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community and the help of a nation.

And in that way we come to realize that we bear responsibility for every child, because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours, that we’re all parents, that they are all our children.

This is our first task, caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.

And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we’re meeting our obligations?

Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children, all of them, safe from harm?

Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know they are loved and teaching them to love in return?

Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer’s no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. Since I’ve been president, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by mass shootings, fourth time we’ve hugged survivors, the fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims.

And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and in big cities all across America, victims whose — much of the time their only fault was being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change.

We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.

If there’s even one step we can take to save another child or another parent or another town from the grief that’s visited Tucson and Aurora and Oak Creek and Newtown and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that, then surely we have an obligation to try.

In the coming weeks, I’ll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement, to mental health professionals, to parents and educators, in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine.

Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard?

Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

You know, all the world’s religions, so many of them represented here today, start with a simple question.

Why are we here? What gives our life meaning? What gives our acts purpose?

We know our time on this Earth is fleeting. We know that we will each have our share of pleasure and pain, that even after we chase after some earthly goal, whether it’s wealth or power or fame or just simple comfort, we will, in some fashion, fall short of what we had hoped. We know that, no matter how good our intentions, we’ll all stumble sometimes in some way.

We’ll make mistakes, we’ll experience hardships and even when we’re trying to do the right thing, we know that much of our time will be spent groping through the darkness, so often unable to discern God’s heavenly plans.

There’s only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have for our children, for our families, for each other. The warmth of a small child’s embrace, that is true.

The memories we have of them, the joy that they bring, the wonder we see through their eyes, that fierce and boundless love we feel for them, a love that takes us out of ourselves and binds us to something larger, we know that’s what matters.

We know we’re always doing right when we’re taking care of them, when we’re teaching them well, when we’re showing acts of kindness. We don’t go wrong when we do that.

That’s what we can be sure of, and that’s what you, the people of Newtown, have reminded us. That’s how you’ve inspired us. You remind us what matters. And that’s what should drive us forward in everything we do for as long as God sees fit to keep us on this Earth.

“Let the little children come to me,” Jesus said, “and do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on and make our country worthy of their memory. May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in His heavenly place. May He grace those we still have with His holy comfort, and may He bless and watch over this community and the United States of America.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/general/transcript-what-barack-obama-told-the-community-of-newtown/feed/0‘Canada stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canada-stands-shoulder-to-shoulder-with-israel/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canada-stands-shoulder-to-shoulder-with-israel/#commentsWed, 21 Nov 2012 14:02:53 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=317236'I want to depart from the traditional role as government spokesperson,' John Baird said last night. Here's his speech

The prepared text of John Baird’s speech at Jewish National Fund Negev Dinner last night.

Ambassador Ziv, Rabbis, Honoured guests:

Thank you for the warm welcome; I am truly humbled to be tonight’s honouree.

I want to begin by thanking tonight’s Dinner Chair Barbara Farber who has been a great friend and supporter of mine for many, many years. I am deeply grateful to you Barbara, your husband Len and your son Steven who recently served in my office. Your support and friendship over the years is deeply appreciated – as are all of your efforts in both the Jewish and general community.

Tonight, I want to try something different. I want to depart from the traditional role as government spokesperson.

Instead of sharing the views you’ve likely heard before – from me, the Prime Minister, or any of my Cabinet colleagues, who are all strong supporters of the Jewish State, I want to share something a little more personal.

I want to share reflections on how I came to be such a strong supporter of Israel and why Israel holds such a special place in my heart.

At the outset, let me just say that true friends are measured by whether they are there for you when you need them most…whether that support is steadfast, even when it’s not popular or expedient to do so.

And, as we have seen this last week, these are indeed challenging times.

Hamas is targeting innocent civilians with an onslaught of rockets. It’s a despicable act of terror, and yet, as Israel responds, as it has every right to, it is the target of condemnation.

Canada, however, stands by Israel’s side.

Sadly, doing so invites a litany of hatred. Moments after I put out a statement standing with Israel, supporting its right to defend itself, I received a barrage of vile reaction, most of which twisted the facts to such an extent, that truth was beyond recognition.

On Twitter, one person said I supported the burning of children in Gaza. Another accused me of playing settler-colonial diplomacy with the lives of Palestinians.

Views like this are rooted in ignorance, or worse…much worse.

In this context, my support for Israel is quite obvious, but it’s an explanation that calls on me to share some of my personal history.

I grew up right here in the Nation’s Capital. It was a peaceful, middle-class upbringing. In truth, it was a privileged existence and one I’m thankful to have had. I’ve lived my whole life in Nepean.

I’ve never had to fight to prove that I belong here…that this community defines who I am.

I’ve never had to fight a war to defend my right to live in this community.

I’ve never been exiled from my home.

I’ve never had to rebuild my nation.

I only point this out by way of contrast to the phoenix-like rising of the modern state of Israel, from a barren desert to the dynamic country we see today.

After 2,000 years of bitter exile, Zionism – the national expression of the Jewish people gave voice and shape to a dream that never left the Jewish conscience: the return of world Jewry to its ancestral homeland. It is quite simply breathtaking to behold what people like Theodor Herzl, Eliezer Ben- Yehuda and Chaim Weizmann accomplished against all odds. It’s simply a miracle to behold.

Seventy years ago, my grandfather left Canada to fight the Nazis in the Second World War. I’m deeply influenced by his contribution to combating an evil which sought to exterminate the Jewish people…that moment in history when the Devil almost drove a stake through the heart of humanity.

The heavy spirit, the knotted stomach, and the paralysis of shock I felt as I learned details of the horrors of the Nazi era have been ingrained in my soul; they shook me to my core and have become part of my DNA.

To think that humankind was so vulnerable, that a sick and flawed theory on racial supremacy could use the full might and power of a state in a twisted and depraved attempt to eradicate a whole race of fellow brothers and sisters…scarred me, and stays with me today.

My scar is merely figurative. It will never be as deep, or as real as the one that left its mark on a man I recently met in Boston…a Holocaust Survivor…a man who was thrown into the depths of hell and climbed back…a man, who like all European Jews, was targeted for merely existing.

After I spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, this gentleman approached me and told me something I’ll never forget. He clasped my shoulder from behind, slowly took my hand with both of his…looked me in the eye, and said “I wish there were more people like you before the war.”

I have never been prouder to be a member of Stephen Harper’s team; I have never felt a greater honour.

I tell you this story because just as I felt honoured, I also experienced deep sadness.

Yes, the horrors of the Holocaust are behind this one man. But the hatred that caused it, has cast itself in a new form.

Rather than target him personally, it targets the Jewish state.

That Israel is still the subject of hatred is deeply disturbing and one of the forces that drives my support for the Jewish State.

In choosing not to stand idly by as the age-old hatred of the Jewish people has been transferred to the “collective Jew,” I have been speaking up against the new anti-Semitism that is so pervasive today.

It targets the Jewish people by targeting the Jewish homeland, as the source of injustice and conflict in the world.

It is perversely couched in the language of human rights.

Just as conventional anti-Semitism denied Jews the right to live as equal members of humanity, the new anti-Semitism denies the State of Israel the right to live as an equal member of the international community.

It’s because of this distorted thinking that over one quarter of all UN resolutions condemning a state’s human rights violations have been directed at Israel.

It purposely blurs the lines between Palestinian civilians and Hammas terrorists.

It turns a blind eye to the fact that if any other state were suffering from terrorism as Israel does today; there would be no question of its right to defend itself.

This is a self-evident right, indeed a responsibility in every case except when the question turns to Israel’s obligation to protect its citizens from rockets attacks.

In the vernacular, Israel is portrayed as the aggressor because it fits the narrative ironically echoed by so much of the media: “It all began when Israel retaliated”…

Worse still, when this new anti-Semitism expresses itself in the call for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, it is no longer hate-speech, it is incitement to genocide. And we have to name it for what it is.

We cannot dismiss the Iranian regime’s calls for Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth as mere hyperbole.

History has taught us that genocide is preceded by hyperbole. In fact, the genocidal horrors of the Holocaust were made possible by the deliberate incitement of hatred against and demonization of the Jewish people.

Our job then, is to expose this new anti-Semitism for what it is.

For a country like Canada, the easy thing to do would be simply to go along with anti-Israeli sentiment, to get along with other countries.

It would be easier to pretend that engaging in anti-Israeli rhetoric is being somehow even-handed, and to excuse it under the false pretence of being an honest broker.

Yes, it would be much easier for us to simply “go along to get along.”

But as I have said frequently, Canada will not “go along to get along.” Not under this Prime Minister’s watch and most certainly not under my watch as Canada’s Foreign Minister.

Canada upholds Israel’s right to exist—as a Jewish state—in peace and security.

On this point, there is no space for moral equivocation or ambivalence. We are compelled as a country of free citizens to speak clearly.

We have the right, and therefore the obligation, to speak out and to act.

Canada will not accept the attempt to judge Israel by a different standard than any other state, we will not passively observe the effort to delegitimize and isolate it within the international community, nor will we stay silent while the Jewish state is attacked for defending its territory or its people.

Canada stands shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel.

Israel is an inspiration…the only democracy in the region…

It is a leading innovator in so many fields, despite so many challenges…

It is a champion of civil rights in a region that far too often defines repression…

Simply put, Israel is worthy of our support because it is a society that shares so many values with Canada – freedom…democracy… human rights and the rule of law.

And I’ve seen this first-hand.

As some of you know, Tel Aviv is one of my favourite cities in the world. Every time I visit the city, I am always impressed with the beautiful harmony with which Jews of different backgrounds and different levels of observance live together…a city that co-exists as its official name – Tel Aviv-Jaffa – with an Arab minority. I recall one Friday afternoon standing in the junction where the Carmel Market and Sheinkin Street meet, watching the microcosm of Israel playing itself out: Jews and Arabs interacting in the market; young secular men putting on a Tefellin at Chabad booths, people who were free to love who they love without any fear of persecution. As I took this all in, it reaffirmed what I already knew: those who label Israel a racist state are simply wrong.

Earlier I talked about the phoenix-like rising of Israel. Of course, we can’t talk about making something spectacular with nothing more than a vision, without talking about Tel Aviv and Meir Dizengoff.

He was a man with a bold vision to build a new Jewish city out of almost nothing – a city, I might add, that couldn’t have been built without JNF funds.

Dizengoff and Tel Aviv symbolize the rebirth of the Jewish people in their historical homeland.

As a city that absorbed so many Jews who survived the Holocaust, Tel Aviv’s founders built a city that became the financial and cultural centre of a nation reborn.

This is not merely a commercial place, but an emotional space, bearing a cosmopolitan presence mingled with pioneering memories.

Which gets us to the focus of this evening’s celebration: the important role of the JNF. Its contributions to the State of Israel are deeply connected to its rebirth. The JNF is unparalleled in its work, both in the historical role it played in the creation of Israel, and in the role it continues to play in bettering the quality of life within Israel – for all…rural and urban Israelis alike; Jewish, Arab and Christians alike.

I wouldn’t know as much as I do about the work of the organization were it not for my personal friendship with national director – Josh Cooper – who has been a friend of mine for over a decade. I commend the leadership of JNF for having selected such a capable and dynamic individual to lead the organization in Canada.

I’ll conclude by looking forward.

More than 60 years ago, Israel appeared as a light in a world emerging from darkness.

Against all odds – and despite concerted efforts by some – the light has not been extinguished.

It burns still.

And it burns ever brighter when upheld by the principles of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law.

There is room for more light in the world, especially as the darkness of swirling regional uncertainty threatens to close in.

Working together, we strengthen and affirm these important principles in word and deed.

And we declare our choice to use our freedoms and shared humanity for good.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/canada-stands-shoulder-to-shoulder-with-israel/feed/49‘I look forward to working with the Obama Administration over the next four years’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/i-look-forward-to-working-with-the-obama-administration-over-the-next-four-years/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/i-look-forward-to-working-with-the-obama-administration-over-the-next-four-years/#commentsWed, 07 Nov 2012 06:13:18 +0000Aaron Wherryhttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=312175Stephen Harper’s statement on the re-election of U.S. President Barack Obama.
“On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to congratulate President Barack Obama on his victory in …

Stephen Harper’s statement on the re-election of U.S. President Barack Obama.

“On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to congratulate President Barack Obama on his victory in tonight’s election and on being re-elected by the American people for a second term.

“Canada and the United States enjoy one of the closest and most extensive relationships in the world.

“Over the last four years, the President and I have worked on several important bilateral initiatives to generate jobs and growth in both our countries. This includes the Beyond the Border Action Plan, which will speed up trade and travel across our borders while also enhancing security.

We are also working together with other partners to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, which seeks to boost trade in the Asia-Pacific region.

“I look forward to working with the Obama Administration over the next four years to continue finding ways to increase trade and investment flows between our countries. This includes putting in place the transportation and security infrastructure necessary to take bilateral commercial relations to new heights and reducing red tape so companies on both sides of the border can create more jobs.”

“I also look forward to continuing to work with President Obama on pressing global economic issues as well as on security challenges, such as those in Iran and Syria.

“I would also like to congratulate all incoming and re-elected Members of Congress and Governors. Close cooperation between our two countries will be essential as we seek to create jobs, growth and long-term prosperity over the coming months and years.”

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/i-look-forward-to-working-with-the-obama-administration-over-the-next-four-years/feed/3Dalton McGuinty in his own words: ‘This is the right time’http://www.macleans.ca/politics/dalton-mcguinty-this-is-the-right-time-for-ontarios-next-liberal-premier/
http://www.macleans.ca/politics/dalton-mcguinty-this-is-the-right-time-for-ontarios-next-liberal-premier/#commentsMon, 15 Oct 2012 23:43:02 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=303571Text of an email that went out to Liberal supporters from Dalton McGuinty earlier this evening: …
Sixteen years ago, when I was elected leader of our Party, the Ontario Liberals

Text of an email that went out to Liberal supporters from Dalton McGuinty earlier this evening:

Sixteen years ago, when I was elected leader of our Party, the Ontario Liberals had won exactly one election in 50 years.

We couldn’t do anything to help families because we couldn’t win an election.

That’s changed.

We’ve won three elections in a row.

But more important is what those election wins have allowed us to do.

In every area that matters most to families – their schools, their health care, their environment and their economy — we’ve made huge progress.

We’ve gone from struggling schools to the best schools in the English-speaking world…

From Canada’s longest health-care wait times, to the shortest

From dirty air to clean air.

And the toughest drinking water standards, anywhere.

When it comes to the economy:

We’ve made our workforce the strongest and our taxes very competitive.

We’re renewing our infrastructure. We keep creating jobs.

Ontario has recovered 13 per cent of our jobs lost in the recession.

In the U.S., it’s 49 per cent.

We’ve positioned Ontario for decades of success.

Our government hasn’t been perfect.

But when it comes to the big things that families count on us to get right -schools, health care, the environment and the economy — we’ve gotten it right every time.

Just this afternoon, we updated Ontarians on the state of our finances.

We’re once again ahead of schedule with our plan to balance the budget…

We’ve beaten our budget forecasts in seven of the last nine years.

I feel very good about where we are as a party and a province.

But as Liberals, we’re always driving forward.

The opposition’s political games are holding Ontario back.

They’ve told us they oppose our plan for a two-year pay freeze for government workers.

That means we can’t make it law.

So, we need to go back to the drawing board.

We’re going to make a sincere and determined effort to negotiate a wage freeze agreement with our labour partners.

Like the agreements already reached with 80,000 public sector workers.

We’re also going to consult with the opposition about what they would support to freeze wages.

To this end, I’ve asked the Lieutenant Governor to prorogue the legislature to allow those discussions with our labour partners and the opposition to occur in an atmosphere that is free of the heightened rancour of politics in the legislature.

And when the legislature returns, we will either have negotiated agreements in hand or a firm sense of what the opposition will support.

As the party and government of relentless progress, we’re always looking for new ideas and ways to renew ourselves.

And I’ve concluded that this is the right time for Ontario’s next Liberal Premier and our next set of ideas to guide our province forward.

Earlier today, I asked Yasir Naqvi, our party president, to convene a leadership convention at the earliest possible time.

I will remain as Premier until that leadership convention.

And it will be my honour to continue to serve as the MPP for Ottawa South until the next general election.

I know I’ve asked some hard things of you.

But I’ve always been inspired by the ideal that the older generations work hard to build a bright future for the younger ones.

And they do this, always, with love and an unwavering commitment.

I saw that in my own mother and father.

It’s what Terri and I have tried to do for our children.

And I see it in the eyes and actions of Ontario families, every day.

I thank you for the honour of serving as your leader and your Premier.

]]>http://www.macleans.ca/politics/dalton-mcguinty-this-is-the-right-time-for-ontarios-next-liberal-premier/feed/4The Bank of Canada on the death of James Coynehttp://www.macleans.ca/general/the-bank-of-canada-on-the-death-of-james-coyne/
http://www.macleans.ca/general/the-bank-of-canada-on-the-death-of-james-coyne/#commentsSun, 14 Oct 2012 18:23:41 +0000macleans.cahttp://www2.macleans.ca/?p=303257James Elliott Coyne, former governor of the Bank of Canada, died Friday in Winnipeg at the age of 102.

James Elliott Coyne, former governor of the Bank of Canada, died Friday in Winnipeg at the age of 102.

On Sunday, the Bank of Canada issued a statement to mourn his passing:

“Mr. Coyne had a distinguished career in public service, which included the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Central Mortgage Bank, the Foreign Exchange Control Board, the Canadian Embassy in Washington, the Wartime Prices and Trade Board, and the Bank of Canada. He joined the Bank in 1938 and served as its Governor from 1955 until 1961.

“During the trying economic and political period in which he governed the Bank, three important and lasting legacies were established – legacies that directly influence the Bank’s monetary policy framework today.

“Mr. Coyne firmly believed, when many others did not, that low and stable inflation should be the paramount objective of monetary policy – a principle that has since become the cornerstone of monetary policy frameworks around the world. In addition, he was a strong proponent of a flexible exchange rate regime. As a result, Canada has had one of the longest experiences with a floating currency in the entire world. Finally, his central role in the controversy between the Bank and the Government of Canada during the “Coyne Affair” of 1961 ultimately led to a critical clarification of both the Bank’s and the government’s responsibilities with respect to the conduct of monetary policy in Canada.

“Mr. Coyne’s legacy has profoundly influenced all of us who work at the Bank, and has made it a stronger and more accountable institution. On behalf of the Bank’s Governing Council and all Bank staff, both past and present, I extend our most sincere sympathies to his wife and family.”